"The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilization."
actually applies to the right, not the left. I just put up a post on my blog containing some emails I have received and some discussions I have had over the last week. The hyper overreaction to someone who hasn't even governed yet as opposed to the hyper (or non existent) under reaction of the man who has for the last eight years (who was responsible for actual catastrophes) never ceases to amaze me.
It's a complete denial of the reality of the last eight years but it's not surprising. The utter inability to admit any fault is the cornerstone of conservatism.
The utter inability to admit any fault is the cornerstone of conservatism.
Funny, I didn't think you were a conservative...
And if Obama's first actions are anything to go by, our worries are looking more and more justified. Appointing Robert Malley as his special envoy to Syria and Egypt is frighteningly stupid and dangerous. This was the man who thought the invasion of Afghanistan was a smart idea... in 1980, when the Soviets did it. This is the man that President Clinton fired from his negotiating team for acting contrary to American interests.
Maybe because he HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, Mark? Hell he's never had a job that wasn't a sinecure. And now that you have him I hope you enjoy him - good and hard.
And exactly what catastrophes did the last administration cause? Other then the train wrecks caused by obstructionist policies on the other side I mean.
Why don't you just fuck off because you are singularly incapable of reading and understanding one iota of a scintilla of thought that is written on this blog.
One more time. Read it and try to get it through your Goddamn thick skull.
President Bush is not a CONSERVATIVE. He never was one and never will be one.
John McCain isn't a CONSERVATIVE. He never was one and never will be one.
Anyone who would vote for and support that abortion of a bill that basically nationalized the major banks can in no way call themselves Conservative.
The people on this blog didn't much like Bush and we didn't like McCain.
In fact, the reason that your guy won is that many Conservatives stayed home this election because they didn't have a dog in this hunt.
Obama won with fewer overall votes than Kerry got in 2004.
Conservatives sat out this election and trying to pin this crap on them is intellectually dishonest and frankly a godamned lie.
But you would know all about lying you pedantic fool. Now go bugger off to your classroom .
OK Mark, that's more like it! I was waiting for you to attempt to make another ridiculous case that cannot be made with any serious rational thought involved.
Your argument consists of "I know your are but what am I".
Apparently, like good quality snark, our past and present criticisms of the GOP completely escapes you. If we don't agree with your premise that Bush is a catastrophe we are in denial of reality?
Come on now Mark, I know you can do better than that.
Funny thing, I just read an article today that the Obama team is going to keep most of the Bush administration policies relating to intelligence gathering. You know, the ones that people like Marko... bitch and moan and cry about. Bet you ten dollars that Markodoofus will be back here in a month proclaiming that those self same policies are an integral part of the fight against terrorism.
Hmmm, I was informed differently. That's what I get for writing something my wife told me without checking. So there you go Marko, a Conservative admitting when he's wrong. I guess that refutes your generalization.
Anyway, my error does not mitigate my overall point. Conservatives only supported McCain and Bush because they thought the other guy was worse. Neither of these men are Conservative, except in some social and religious aspects. Hell, did you even see the banner Kevin had on the right(now removed) about McCain being the least offensive Democrat running. Now go bugger off and leave us "monsters" alone. Yes, I did read that incredibly offensive blog post by Krugman that you posted. And you people wonder why we are buying guns.
All 'Delphia's synaptic bursts are generalizations, there's no specificity of thought in evidence. It's like the twitching of a stemless brain in a jar, hypnotized by the swirling lights of Obamatron lava-lamp pulsing in a dark corner of a lab - not knowing that the Obamatron is simply plugged into the Chicago Electrical Grid, and is made of wax.
It's more like Der Furerher worship.If Obama gets pissed off; would that make him an, Angry half-white male? I wonder if the cartoonist's are going to go after die furerher's ears like they did Bush's?He's got a set.Anyway, i'm looking forward to four yrs. of saying: Is that the big change you had in mind?,to all the liberals. And would it be racist to say: He's not my malotto! If it is i guess i'm just living up to the name-calling thats been going on for,-----how many decades now?
"Yes, I did read that incredibly offensive blog post by Krugman that you posted. And you people wonder why we are buying guns."
So, are you saying you agree with Mssrs Delay, Rove and Cheney? Why is it offensive? Interesting that you bring up "buying guns." This was just posted by a commenter on my blog.
"The people who are so bitter about Obama's election are the same ones who talked about him being a Muslim and a terrorist. They are the ones that Sarah Palin was talking about when referred to "real Americans," which I guess means conservative racist whites. Those people actually seem to be a small minority. Their power will diminish gradually over time, but I fear they will follow the same pattern as similar conservatives have in the past (Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, and of course, Al Qaeda)."
DJ, numbers were from CNN Election Center. Remember only 99 percent of the vote is in so those numbers I posted above will change.
No, goshgerblanmmingdangingslamjangingdanigt don't go conceding, Sam.
See, if you play by Mark's rules, you can just say you were right.
Funny how Mark understood how to - even partially - try and prove his point - as long as he can use Wikipedia and cut and paste.
But when it comes to things that require analysis - such as the insulting take on Bush and insisting that we're huge Bush supporters (despite the fact none of us would give him - overall - high marks)... He fails the grade utterly.
Anyway, Mark never lets facts get in his way, and while I admire your bipartisanship, just like the Republicans being polite to the Democrats, it's utterly wasted.
You mean it's conservatives that are buying guns? I thought it was liberals mustering into the, Civilian national security force! I thought all us conservatives had been clinging to those and our Bibles for years. That we didn't need more. Must be just doing our part to jump start the economy!
So now we're all bitter too? Sorry, I don't see it here nor have I seen it much anywhere else. [Sarcasm] Maybe because we're too busy buying guns and bibles. [/Sarcasm] Nowhere near the frenzy I saw across the isle after Bush won in 2000 and 2004. I haven't heard anyone threaten (or promise) to leave the US after an election result they didn't like either. [Sarcasm] I guess that just means we'll have to shoot our way into the presidency. [/Sarcasm] Conservatives are racist terrorsts like Rudolph and McVeigh? I haven't ever heard but one or two conservatives defend that kind of approach to politics. Unlike your side defending Willian Ayers and the Weather Underground's plan to murder of 25 million Americans. Project much Mark? JFC. Get a grip.
"The hyper overreaction to someone who hasn't even governed yet"....
Well the fact that he has never governed is part of the problem, isn't it? He has been in politics for *how long* now? And he has accomplished NOTHING so far. More to the point, his *claims* of what he has tried to do and what he has done have raised major bullshit flags on nearly every major issue (Yes, I noticed you completely ignored that point in my other comment). About the only exceptions to that are the places where this man, who *claims* to be all about "transparency", refuses to release records.
And now, as he picks his "transition team", we're seeing "Hope and Change":
- Robert Rubin, chairman of Citigroup's executive committee when the bank pushed bogus analyst research, helped Enron Corp. cook its books, and got caught baking its own.
- Anne Mulcahy, William Daley and Richard Parsons, three directors at Fannie Mae when it was breaking accounting rules.
- Laura Tyson, director at Morgan Stanley, who also got nailed by the SEC for accounting violations on her watch.
- William Donaldson, SEC chairman in 2004 when the SEC voted to allow big Wall Street banks (like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns)to lever up their balance sheets.
- Rahm Emanuel, director at Freddie Mac in 2000 and 2001 when it was committing accounting fraud.
And yet, with nearly half his economic transition team made up of those who were AT BEST incompetent and more likely criminally culpable in defrauding the US Government and the taxpayers of trillions of dollars, calling the undeniable, documentable "swooning frenzy" over President-Elect Hussein an "absurd wave of self-deception" is a "hyper overreaction".
McVeigh, contrary to the myth, was not a Christian. He was an atheist, he wasn't a racist, he wasn't a deranged loser or a nutjob.
What he was was someone who saw the government of the United States murder a religious group for no good reason. He watched as those who committed the murder were absolved by the media, unpunished by the President, uninvestigated, unquestioned, and the most frightening of all to him, given a pass by the American people.
The ATF was and I would argue is to this day a fundamentally tyrannical organization. Sometimes the boot rests lightly and sometimes it presses down hard, but it is always there. We have not been truly free for some time now. The real question is was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist or a patriot?
Was McVeigh wrong to bomb the Murrah building? When do we get to that point when as Jefferson said:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"?
When does taking up arms against the government go from treason to revolution, from unlawful rebellion to restoration of the natural law?
In hindsight, of course, McVeigh was wrong. Clinton transferred power to Bush at the end of his second term, and Waco was not the beginning of a police state. He could not, however, know that at the time. Also, I think there is a case to be made that the bombing of OKC made the Clintons back off, as you can see by the Montana Freemen standoff's peaceful resolution, by the settlement of Randy Weaver's suit, and by the fact that despite there being plenty of fringe religious groups then and now, not a single one was ever laid siege too.
The accepted story about OKC is that McVeigh was a racist terrorist and that the bombing was random. McVeigh, however, always maintained that the bombing was a simple act of retaliation for the murder of the Weavers and the massacre of the Branch Davidians. See, when you put it that way, it becomes much harder to paint him as evil. If he was so violent, why didn't he kill the OK state trooper who pulled him over? Maybe because the OK state trooper had never done anything he considered destructive of liberty? If he was a simple violence junkie, why the quoting of Enlightenment philosophers, of great American statesmen, of Supreme Court decisions?
I mean, why is it that people like us love to quote Locke and Jefferson and Patrick Henry but not be willing to actually live those ideals? Locke and Jefferson are very clear about this: when the government becomes tyrannical it is the duty of free men to strike it with force in order to restore natural liberty. So the real question is a two parter:
1. In what way are Ruby Ridge and Waco not destructive of liberty?
and
2. In what way is the attack of a government building not an appropriate response to the tyranny of said government?
Yes, I know children were killed in the Murrah building. I know these children had committed no crime. I know that innocent people died in the bombing of the Murrah building. I know that McVeigh dismissed those deaths as "collateral damage". I will simply point out two things: one, that children were killed at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and two, that these events preceded OKC.
I'm not holding McVeigh up as an ideal to follow, but as a point of discussion about the issue at hand, really the most important issue of all: when is the time to take up arms? When is the time to begin resistance against the government?
I do not mean to offend with this comment, and I am not advocating acts of violence against the government or anyone else. I realize that the questions I've put forth are incredibly complex and difficult ones. I just hope that the discussion I (hopefully) spark will be a civil one.
You could also argue that McVeigh was part of a larger conspiracy connected to Al Qaida. Until Terry Nichols produces some evidence that discussion is largely pointless. It's all too easy to slip into tinfoil hat mode with the attendant CDS, ODS, Trilateralists, black helecopters, etc. We have enough to deal with as it is without endless speculation about where the line is. When that line is crossed I believe we will all know it in our hearts. Looking at the historic record I would be extremely reluctant to participate in a potential Jacobin-like movement without overwhelming evidence that there was indeed no other choice. Is ensuing bloodbath worth it? We were extremely lucky in 1775. Without the presence of all of the founders, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison especially, the result could have been far different. Look at what happened to the French Revolution.
GOF -
Leave us not be forgetting that Jamey Gorlick is being bandied about for AG. You might remmember her, Mark, she's the same JG whose policies in the JD made it impossible for that computer to be searched just prior to September 11, 2001.
"DJ, numbers were from CNN Election Center. Remember only 99 percent of the vote is in so those numbers I posted above will change."
Amazing. You have demonstrated that you are capable of finding facts and showing us where you found them, and that you know why you should do so. Why is it so difficult for you to actually do it?
"So, are you saying you agree with Mssrs Delay, Rove and Cheney?"
Where did I say or mention that. You have serious reading comprehension problems for a teacher.
Why is it offensive?
Because he called people he politically disagrees with monsters. This is dehumanization. It follows that those people he calls monsters need to be dealt with in the way that all monsters are dealt with.
Interesting that you bring up "buying guns."
Why shouldn't I. It is my right as a free American and since your guy has stated publically that he wants to restrict that right(it's right there on his GD transition website), it follows that I should buy them now to show him that we won't be cowed by any potential tyrannical policies.
As far as your other blather implying that I'm a racist or what have you, the only reasonable reply to that is to tell you to go fuck yourself.
Looking at the historic record I would be extremely reluctant to participate in a potential Jacobin-like movement without overwhelming evidence that there was indeed no other choice. Is ensuing bloodbath worth it? We were extremely lucky in 1775. Without the presence of all of the founders, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison especially, the result could have been far different. Look at what happened to the French Revolution.
___________________________________
Well there's the issue. If, god forbid, the reset button is needed, it will not be a clean war. This isn't the 1700s, and the oppressors will not be wearing redcoats or barrister's wigs. They'll be ATF agents, perhaps this new "civilian security force", however much of the army decides to stand by the tyrants, etc.
It's not going to be an army of people who are theoretically countrymen, but in reality speak English differently and are marching at us with fixed bayonets. No, it will be an elected federal government acting contrary to the Constitution. I think that civil disobedience will fail, and then armed resistance will begin. The issue is there can be no new Continental Army, it is simply impossible to raise an armored mechanized force without being defeated in detail by the vastly stronger government forces. Circumstances dictate guerrilla war.
Make no mistake about it, some may have cavalierly champion the "reset button", but we would be looking at five to ten years, minimum, of savage civil conflict. I'd like to think that a second American Civil War would be a clean one, but my knowledge of history says that is no longer possible. Following that, it's an open question as to whether or not the States can ever be united again, politically or in any real sense, no matter who wins.
____________________________________
When that line is crossed I believe we will all know it in our hearts
_____________________________________
See, that's just not true. The problem is that there is a certain population in this country who is not opposed to an intrusive State, as long as they are the ones doing the intruding. For example, Obama will not be getting rid of the Patriot Act. Because, you see, the Patriot Act is only dangerous and unconstitutional with a Republican President. A Democrat would never abuse it, don't you know. I don't think this is limited to the Democrats, I think a few of the more ridiculous Christians really wouldn't mind it either. However, the wing of the country that favors more and more of the State votes Democrat, plain and simple. This is not a partisan attack, it is a conclusion drawn from the respective philosophies of the two parties: one is for more more government, one is for less government.
See, that's the issue. A Republican President never would have ordered the Waco Siege. But, assuming one had, and events had played out just as they had in real life, then there would have been an uprising. Because everyone would have been outraged. The media would have whipped up the flames, and there would have been acts of violence if the demands for investigation and punishment were not immediately met. Because about 35% of the country is not opposed to intrusive, meddling, authoritarian government, as long as it is their bent of intrusive, authoritarian government. The media, unfortunately, is with this fraction of the population. That's why Waco is an "unfortunate incident" and the Patriot Act is "the end of American liberty".
That's why we can't all "know it in our hearts". Because for some people the line was crossed when FDR destroyed the limitations on Federal power through Court ruling, or when he interned the Japanese, or when JFK and LBJ started warrantless wiretapping, or Clinton and Waco, some think the Patriot Act.Some people think the line has yet to be crossed, some think it never will be. Most dangerous of all are the people who have different lines for different parties. They hold outstretched arms, smiling as they wait for their chains.
So yeah. There is no "we". There are two Americas. There is an America who knows the dangers of unchecked government, and an America who believes that as long as the right people are in charge, that Big Brother can be loving. They dress it up in a cloak of lies, but when the government controls your health care, the economy, how much energy you can use, where your children go to school, etc, then they own you. "They mean to rule well, but they mean to rule".
Sarah, if you can't see something that obvious, then it is completely beyond my power to show them to you.
"Why is it so difficult for you to actually do it?"
I only find it "difficult" to do it when the test is rigged to force me into a response which justifies your fervent and unwavering ideology. Now's the part where you and Unix go all Joan Collins on me and accuse me of being a liar....
"It follows that those people he calls monsters need to be dealt with in the way that all monsters are dealt with."
I think all three of those men are monsters. They, in no way whatsoever, represent the spirit of this country. Just because they have an R at the end of their name doesn't mean they get a free pass. LBJ was a monster. Wilson was a racist. These are facts. Delay, Rove, and Cheney are despicable criminals whose day is now thankfully done.
"Sarah, if you can't see something that obvious, then it is completely beyond my power to show them to you."
THAT'S an argument? It works on students when they're legally obligated to let you shut them up. Not here.
"when the test is rigged to force me into a response which justifies your fervent and unwavering ideology."
Demonstrate how any of their tests would do this. You haven't.
"'It follows that those people he calls monsters need to be dealt with in the way that all monsters are dealt with.'
I think all three of those men are monsters. They, in no way whatsoever, represent the spirit of this country. Just because they have an R at the end of their name doesn't mean they get a free pass. LBJ was a monster. Wilson was a racist. These are facts. Delay, Rove, and Cheney are despicable criminals whose day is now thankfully done."
....aaaand you just completely confirmed he statement regarding your beliefs.
Damn. You've lost so much credibility I'm having second thoughts about even posting this.
"These are facts. Delay, Rove, and Cheney are despicable criminals whose day is now thankfully done."
Prove it. That's why we are buying guns. Because your ilk calls a political disagreement a criminal act. Calls them monsters. I assume you think they should be tried and shot. You are filled with hate and to make it even more sickening, you project your hate onto us and no doubt teach it to the kids in your care.
And when your messiah does the same fucking thing as the party you hate, YOU WILL DEFEND IT.
The difference is, we will condemn it just as we have condemned Bush when we have disagreed with him.
Unrefuted examples, I might add. Johnny Cochrane couldn't get you acquitted given those examples.
You are a liar. Not because of what we said, or what we feel, but because of what you've done.
it is completely beyond my power to show them to you.
It's completely beyond your "power" to admit that you've lied to us. Even when repeatedly pointed at blatant and obvious examples. You'd better believe it's "beyond your power" to explain to us the "Catastrophe" of the Bush administration. Hell, you can't even correctly identify where Bush is politically, much less name the "cornerstones" of "conservative thought". You can't even face up to easy issues like your lying. No, it's no surprise it's "beyond your power" to show us something that would be difficult, at best, for someone honest and intelligent. Someone who has to think for a living. Hell, someone who's demonstrated intellectual processes before. For you? Yes, far beyond your power.
when the test is rigged to force me into a response
In other words: When I'm asked for facts or proof, or to not creatively redefine words.
Delay, Rove, and Cheney are despicable criminals whose day is now thankfully done.
What crimes have they committed?
There's more evidence - that you ignore - of your continual dishonesty - than there is that they've committed crimes.
Oh, wait, that's one of those loaded questions asking you for facts and honest answers again. You'll feel free to ignore it, I'm sure.
If this was a court of law, he would be found guilty of slander; accusing people of being monsters and criminals without bringing any facts or even attempting to list their supposed crimes.
That's why they're called useful idiots - blind idolatry renders them senseless as Mark so ably displays; "and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers."
That why among the Big Lefties they are so highly regarded, too.
The power of Mark's arguments just leave me stunned. Hiding behind the "well if I HAVE to tell you, you still wouldn't get it" dodge. WTF.
'Splain it to us Mark. If your argument is SOOOOOO strong, SOOOO obvious and SOOOOO smart back up your assertions. Put your money where your mouth is.
What Catastrophes?
Nobody has forced you to give any particular answer, all we ask is that you back up your answer with facts and then cite them. "Because I Said So" doesn't cut it. That you have never (at least as long as I've been reading your comments) backed anything up with facts and then cited your source except once above in this post, tells us everything we need to know about your intellectual honesty.
If Rove et al. are in fact criminals why aren't they in jail? Just because you don't agree with their politics doesn't constitute a criminal offense. If Bush is Hitler WTF aren't you in a camp or taking the dirt nap? Are you really looking to criminalize dissent? You might be surprised at the reaction you get to that one. Watch what you ask for.
"Sarah, if you can't see something that obvious, then it is completely beyond my power to show them to you."
As I noted before, when you are asked a question or are asked to support your blitherings with verifiable facts and an analysis thereof, you nearly always respond in one of four ways. This response is your standard response #2, yet again.
"I only find it "difficult" to do it when the test is rigged to force me into a response which justifies your fervent and unwavering ideology."
It's not a "test", teacher, it's simply a request for you to explain YOUR OWN STATEMENT. No, you find it utterly impossible to do when when you are asked to substantiate and/or explain a statement which you made that comes from a Random But Important Sounding Statement Generator set on Make It Sound Like I Know Shit. They're YOUR statements, you blithering jackass, and asking YOU to substantiate and/or explain YOUR OWN STATEMENTS has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH ANYONE ELSE'S IDEOLOGY.
You still haven't realized that you aren't intelligent enough to fool anyone, have you? You are a phony from the ground up, and you keep demonstrating it.
A woman went to see her doctor, but there didn't seem to me anything wrong.
"So, why are you here?" asked the doctor.
"Well, it's that.. you see.. My husband... he, he, he.. he wants to have... YOU KNOW... sex, but NOT THERE. You know, back ... THERE!" she finally stammered out.
"I see," said her doctor, "so why did you come here?"
"Well, I just didn't know if, you know, you can do that, if it's safe.. or .. you know.. a good idea, and I wanted to ask someone who would know, you know?" she stammered.
"Well, I appreciate you coming in to see me, and if you're comfortable with it, anal sex can be a very rewarding experience if you want to do that. Don't let him force you. Just be sure to use lots of lube, go slow, and use a condom so you don't get pregnant," the doctor replies.
"PREGNANT? What... HOW?" the woman exclaims.
The doctor snorted and said, "Where do you think lawyers come from?"
Sarah, if you can't see something that obvious, then it is completely beyond my power to show them to you.
Are you for real, Mark?
But you've given me a great idea: I'm going to use this when my students ask me tough questions. "If you have to ask, you'll never know. Next question!"
I'm telling you, Marky's a script. Part Mad Lib, part [Turing] test AI.
Russ -- That's scary. I was just about to say the same thing.
c *****
read(5,*) question
if(question.gt.iq) then
call deflect
endif
subroutine deflect
write(6,*) ' If you have to ask, you'll never know. '
Britt asks The real question is was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist or a patriot?
I don't think I particularly care for a person who has to consider that a debatable point.
A patriot does not murder innocent people. Plain and fucking simple.
___________________________________
So when the government did the exact same thing, a premeditated attack on a building that they *knew* contained women and children that was....what exactly?
You know, we bombed the crap out of Germany and Japan. We killed thousands of innocent people, and thousands of children. So thus, according to your logic, the pilots of the B-17s were also not patriots.
Why is it ok to kill for the government in response to tyranny but not ok to kill members of the government in response to their tyranny?
Timothy McVeigh considered Waco to be a crime, a heinous act of tyranny far worse then any in American history. He acted on that belief by killing those who were responsible.
This is not the issue at hand though. The issue at hand is simply this: Why is it that we are supposed to read Locke and Jefferson, but the actual violence part is considered to be a forbidden topic of discussion?
McVeigh, it can be quite easily argued, acted in a Lockean manner performing his duty as a citizen of a free state being hijacked by tyrants and rebelled against the government.
Again, we all like to pretend that when (I no longer believe it to be "if", sadly) the trolley jumps the tracks and violence begins, that the stalwart champions of American liberty will form up in rank by fife and drum and be lead by the ghost of Washington to victory over the tyrannical government in a glorious battle on a gently rolling sunlit field. It will not happen like that at all. I don't know how it will start, nor do I want to predict how, but the media and the government will call them American terrorists, and traitors, and all other manner of terrible names.
In fact, it is far more likely that Waco and OKC will, in hindsight, come to resemble Bleeding Kansas or Harpers Ferry as distant claps of thunder echoing in advance of the coming storm. I hope I'm wrong, but as Lincoln said:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."
Go back to geekwitha45:
The fact that things have gone so far south in some places that people actually feel compelled to move the fuck out should frighten the almighty piss out of you.
Ten or fifteen years ago, I would’ve dismissed that notion, that people were relocating themselves for freedom within America as the wild rantings of a fringe lunatic, but today, I’m looking for a real estate agent.
We're at that point. If I'm wrong, great I look like an alarmist Chicken Little. That's great because being wrong means that the best years of my life will not be consumed by civil war.
I have not had a civil political discussion ever. I'm pretty young, but the average political discussion lasts five to ten minutes and ends with me being called a racist, a fascist, or a warmonger. See again looking at history, civil conflict happens when the common ground vanishes, when a no mans land appears. No, the solution is not bipartisanship and the centrification of American politics. The issue is that there is a large percentage of the country, who I fear is getting larger every year that thinks there natural rights include the ability to vote themselves ever increasing sums of other people's money simply because they can. The idea of limited government is almost completely dead in America. The tree of liberty is withered and scarred, ruined by the strangling vine of statist politics and the rot of an apathetic and decadent populace.
I am almost totally convinced that right now, the American people really don't care about liberty. I'm afraid that there is no consensus as to the value of freedom. Again, a large portion of the people of this country would rather exist as well cared for subjects rather then free citizens.
In Starship Troopers, Heinlein writes of the collapse of America, and the reason he gives is that in a democracy people eventually get to the point where they think they can vote themselves whatever they want. Right now, as GM prepares to receive a cash infusion courtesy of the Democratic Party, can you really say we aren't at that point?
There is a huge gulf, a huge gap. Facts do not matter, logic does not matter, massive amounts of historical example does not matter to some in this country. So when some becomes most, do we leave, do we fight, do we hide, do we give up?
Because I don't see this as a winnable situation. Every time I bother counting more and more people are contemptuous of small government, of liberty, of the Constitution. They seek the freedom of the trough and the stable: the freedom to say "It's not my fault, I'm not in charge." Because that's the root cause, to me. The idea was that We The People would govern ourselves. Now it seems like again a large portion of the people are all too willing to allow others to rule them, so long as they get their welfare checks. It's all downhill from that point.
Can this be reversed, can this slide into decline and back into bondage be checked? How?
"Can this be reversed, can this slide into decline and back into bondage be checked? How?"
Watch what happens. We'll have opportunities per the Constitution's normal methods in two years and in four years. Jimmy was out in four. Shall we bet on Barry?
I remember thinking after the '92 election when Billy Jeff only got 43% of the vote that he'd only have 4 years.......
Lots of us thought it would be easier than it was. It depends on how far The Messiah over-reaches, who we put up, and if the Stupid Party figures out that pork-barrel spending and big government "solutions" are largely what got us where we are now. I wouldn't be too cocksure that The One can be held to a single term.
Well, I'm not cocksure about any such thing. I'm ruminating on possibilities, not probabilities, hence my question, "Jimmy was out in for. Shall we bet on Barry?"
Not at this moment. His "magic" is still strong. And that's before he starts shredding what little investigation into voting irregularities and false registrations exists.
And likely pushes for a massive amnesty for Mexicans living in America. Despite Reagan's championing of the last amnesty, CA's never once gone (R) since. Bring in 10-15M currently-illegal into the system...
We'll have to see, but at the moment, it's looking really, really bad. The press is still running interference (now they're trying to damp down expectations and pass the message that hey, those tax cuts, yeah, well, bad idea).
They're left-wing Democrats, no matter what idiocy Mark comes up with to say otherwise. They see this as a "good thing". They'll see the almost-certain cementing of the (D) majority for years to come as a great thing.
We'll have to see, but it ain't looking good right now.
"We'll have to see, but it ain't looking good right now."
No disagreement here. The possibilities are based on the improbability that those who voted for His Royal Highness will receive the pink unicorns farting rainbows and fat checks that they appear to expect. Disillusionment will set in, eyes will open, and we'll have change, by gum. The betting would be about the what and when of change.
He acted on that belief by killing those who were responsible.
No he didn't. He killed some federal employees and their kids and who else I don't know (but I rather imagine included innocent bystanders). He did NOT kill a single FBI or ATF agent that was on the scene in Waco or in the chain of command.
I wouldn't condone the latter either. Those responsible should be in federal prison, not in federal offices. I am 100% for holding them FULLY accountable - including lawfully administered capital punishment. That we have never done so is a national disgrace. But some lone fucko with a gun or a bomb is NOT lawful punishment. He was a loser before the bombing; and the bombing in no fucking way ennobled him. He lived and died a miserable excuse for a person and he is NO patriot in my eyes. Even contemplating that thought is an insult to people who ARE patriots and do not deserve to have their service and sacrifice demeaned by comparison to a scumbag.
But if you can't see the huge difference, you are a person I personally don't trust with a spoon let alone anything that can actually hurt another human being. You are exactly the kind of gun-owner that will end up costing me legal ownership of my guns. Just like Vanderboegh.
My younger brother was at work, seven blocks north of the Murrah building, when the bomb went off on its south side. He was not hurt, but the buildings around where he worked suffered direct damage from the blast.
Oklahoma City is where I was raised up; this is HOME. McVeigh gets no sympathy from me.
He did NOT kill a single FBI or ATF agent that was on the scene in Waco or in the chain of command.
____________________________
Yeah, and we never got around to hanging King George III either.
That's the way it works, you very rarely get to kill the bastards who are really responsible.
We had to slaughter thousands of German civilians and as good as murder a bunch of scared or fanatical teenage conscripts so we could get to the Nuremburg trials. You think the Ostruppen wanted to machine gun Americans at Omaha Beach? Do you think we wanted to kill a bunch of Poles and Russians who had pistols at their backs?
Would I have done the same? No, I probably would have bitched about it and then gone back to my life. He didn't. There is a difference between condoning something, and understanding something. You can understand evil (sometimes) even when you condemn it.
I wouldn't condone the latter either. Those responsible should be in federal prison, not in federal offices. I am 100% for holding them FULLY accountable - including lawfully administered capital punishment. That we have never done so is a national disgrace. But some lone fucko with a gun or a bomb is NOT lawful punishmen
__________________________________
What then when laws fail, or when those charged with their enforcement are unwilling to do so?
These are not idle musings or empty questions. What do you do when those chosen to "establish Justice [and] ensure domestic tranquility" are unable or unwilling to do so? Or do we let the evildoers get away with it, in the hope that they will be taken care of in the end by karma, or punished in the next life by the Almighty?
__________________________________
You are exactly the kind of gun-owner that will end up costing me legal ownership of my guns. Just like Vanderboegh.
___________________________________
If words like mine on a computer screen are the thing driving gun confiscation and the erosion of liberty then maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't with my exercise of free speech.
Yeah, and we never got around to hanging King George III either.
Which was a good thing you ignorant imp. We waged a PR campaign against a tyrannical monarchy when all of our complaints lay in Parliament. You might want to read about Burke's defense of the colonials.
What do you do when those chosen to "establish Justice [and] ensure domestic tranquility" are unable or unwilling to do so?
We vote. And unless you buy the leftie bullshit about Diebold, et al - you aren't going to tell me that elections don't matter are you?
Now the very sad truth is that we keep voting in the same lame excuse for politicians. You, and ten thousand like you, aren't going to change that with [threats of] violence. All you will succeed in doing is creating enough fear in enough people to fully justify (in their minds) a police state crackdown.
Disagree with gun control - don't create excuses for it.
What was Uncle's quote? Don't scare the white people?
Eagle 1
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/11/quote-of-day_11.html (55 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Actually the quote
"The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilization."
actually applies to the right, not the left. I just put up a post on my blog containing some emails I have received and some discussions I have had over the last week. The hyper overreaction to someone who hasn't even governed yet as opposed to the hyper (or non existent) under reaction of the man who has for the last eight years (who was responsible for actual catastrophes) never ceases to amaze me.
It's a complete denial of the reality of the last eight years but it's not surprising. The utter inability to admit any fault is the cornerstone of conservatism.
The utter inability to admit any fault is the cornerstone of conservatism.
Funny, I didn't think you were a conservative...
And if Obama's first actions are anything to go by, our worries are looking more and more justified. Appointing Robert Malley as his special envoy to Syria and Egypt is frighteningly stupid and dangerous. This was the man who thought the invasion of Afghanistan was a smart idea... in 1980, when the Soviets did it. This is the man that President Clinton fired from his negotiating team for acting contrary to American interests.
Maybe because he HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, Mark? Hell he's never had a job that wasn't a sinecure. And now that you have him I hope you enjoy him - good and hard.
And exactly what catastrophes did the last administration cause? Other then the train wrecks caused by obstructionist policies on the other side I mean.
Mark,
Why don't you just fuck off because you are singularly incapable of reading and understanding one iota of a scintilla of thought that is written on this blog.
One more time. Read it and try to get it through your Goddamn thick skull.
President Bush is not a CONSERVATIVE. He never was one and never will be one.
John McCain isn't a CONSERVATIVE. He never was one and never will be one.
Anyone who would vote for and support that abortion of a bill that basically nationalized the major banks can in no way call themselves Conservative.
The people on this blog didn't much like Bush and we didn't like McCain.
In fact, the reason that your guy won is that many Conservatives stayed home this election because they didn't have a dog in this hunt.
Obama won with fewer overall votes than Kerry got in 2004.
Conservatives sat out this election and trying to pin this crap on them is intellectually dishonest and frankly a godamned lie.
But you would know all about lying you pedantic fool. Now go bugger off to your classroom .
OK Mark, that's more like it! I was waiting for you to attempt to make another ridiculous case that cannot be made with any serious rational thought involved.
Your argument consists of "I know your are but what am I".
Apparently, like good quality snark, our past and present criticisms of the GOP completely escapes you. If we don't agree with your premise that Bush is a catastrophe we are in denial of reality?
Come on now Mark, I know you can do better than that.
Eagle 1
Funny thing, I just read an article today that the Obama team is going to keep most of the Bush administration policies relating to intelligence gathering. You know, the ones that people like Marko... bitch and moan and cry about. Bet you ten dollars that Markodoofus will be back here in a month proclaiming that those self same policies are an integral part of the fight against terrorism.
"The utter inability to admit any fault is the cornerstone of conservatism."
The utter inability to admit any fault is the cornerstone of YOU, liar boy.
"Obama won with fewer overall votes than Kerry got in 2004."
Kerry, 2004, 59,028,109 total votes
Obama, 2008, 66,115,541 total votes
And there are still some votes yet to be counted so I don't quite understand your point, Yosemite.
Hmmm, I was informed differently. That's what I get for writing something my wife told me without checking. So there you go Marko, a Conservative admitting when he's wrong. I guess that refutes your generalization.
Anyway, my error does not mitigate my overall point. Conservatives only supported McCain and Bush because they thought the other guy was worse. Neither of these men are Conservative, except in some social and religious aspects. Hell, did you even see the banner Kevin had on the right(now removed) about McCain being the least offensive Democrat running. Now go bugger off and leave us "monsters" alone. Yes, I did read that incredibly offensive blog post by Krugman that you posted. And you people wonder why we are buying guns.
All 'Delphia's synaptic bursts are generalizations, there's no specificity of thought in evidence. It's like the twitching of a stemless brain in a jar, hypnotized by the swirling lights of Obamatron lava-lamp pulsing in a dark corner of a lab - not knowing that the Obamatron is simply plugged into the Chicago Electrical Grid, and is made of wax.
So, teacher boy, show us where those numbers came from so we can verify them for ourselves. C'mon, you can do it.
It's more like Der Furerher worship.If Obama gets pissed off; would that make him an, Angry half-white male? I wonder if the cartoonist's are going to go after die furerher's ears like they did Bush's?He's got a set.Anyway, i'm looking forward to four yrs. of saying: Is that the big change you had in mind?,to all the liberals. And would it be racist to say: He's not my malotto! If it is i guess i'm just living up to the name-calling thats been going on for,-----how many decades now?
"Yes, I did read that incredibly offensive blog post by Krugman that you posted. And you people wonder why we are buying guns."
So, are you saying you agree with Mssrs Delay, Rove and Cheney? Why is it offensive? Interesting that you bring up "buying guns." This was just posted by a commenter on my blog.
"The people who are so bitter about Obama's election are the same ones who talked about him being a Muslim and a terrorist. They are the ones that Sarah Palin was talking about when referred to "real Americans," which I guess means conservative racist whites. Those people actually seem to be a small minority. Their power will diminish gradually over time, but I fear they will follow the same pattern as similar conservatives have in the past (Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, and of course, Al Qaeda)."
DJ, numbers were from CNN Election Center. Remember only 99 percent of the vote is in so those numbers I posted above will change.
No, goshgerblanmmingdangingslamjangingdanigt don't go conceding, Sam.
See, if you play by Mark's rules, you can just say you were right.
Funny how Mark understood how to - even partially - try and prove his point - as long as he can use Wikipedia and cut and paste.
But when it comes to things that require analysis - such as the insulting take on Bush and insisting that we're huge Bush supporters (despite the fact none of us would give him - overall - high marks)... He fails the grade utterly.
Anyway, Mark never lets facts get in his way, and while I admire your bipartisanship, just like the Republicans being polite to the Democrats, it's utterly wasted.
...under reaction of the man who has for the last eight years (who was responsible for actual catastrophes)...
OK, I'll bite. What catastrophes?
You mean it's conservatives that are buying guns? I thought it was liberals mustering into the, Civilian national security force! I thought all us conservatives had been clinging to those and our Bibles for years. That we didn't need more. Must be just doing our part to jump start the economy!
So now we're all bitter too? Sorry, I don't see it here nor have I seen it much anywhere else. [Sarcasm] Maybe because we're too busy buying guns and bibles. [/Sarcasm] Nowhere near the frenzy I saw across the isle after Bush won in 2000 and 2004. I haven't heard anyone threaten (or promise) to leave the US after an election result they didn't like either. [Sarcasm] I guess that just means we'll have to shoot our way into the presidency. [/Sarcasm] Conservatives are racist terrorsts like Rudolph and McVeigh? I haven't ever heard but one or two conservatives defend that kind of approach to politics. Unlike your side defending Willian Ayers and the Weather Underground's plan to murder of 25 million Americans. Project much Mark? JFC. Get a grip.
Eagle 1
P.S. The tags are for your benefit Mark.
"The hyper overreaction to someone who hasn't even governed yet"....
Well the fact that he has never governed is part of the problem, isn't it? He has been in politics for *how long* now? And he has accomplished NOTHING so far. More to the point, his *claims* of what he has tried to do and what he has done have raised major bullshit flags on nearly every major issue (Yes, I noticed you completely ignored that point in my other comment). About the only exceptions to that are the places where this man, who *claims* to be all about "transparency", refuses to release records.
And now, as he picks his "transition team", we're seeing "Hope and Change":
- Robert Rubin, chairman of Citigroup's executive committee when the bank pushed bogus analyst research, helped Enron Corp. cook its books, and got caught baking its own.
- Anne Mulcahy, William Daley and Richard Parsons, three directors at Fannie Mae when it was breaking accounting rules.
- Laura Tyson, director at Morgan Stanley, who also got nailed by the SEC for accounting violations on her watch.
- William Donaldson, SEC chairman in 2004 when the SEC voted to allow big Wall Street banks (like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns)to lever up their balance sheets.
- Rahm Emanuel, director at Freddie Mac in 2000 and 2001 when it was committing accounting fraud.
And yet, with nearly half his economic transition team made up of those who were AT BEST incompetent and more likely criminally culpable in defrauding the US Government and the taxpayers of trillions of dollars, calling the undeniable, documentable "swooning frenzy" over President-Elect Hussein an "absurd wave of self-deception" is a "hyper overreaction".
What color is the sky in your world, Mark?
McVeigh, contrary to the myth, was not a Christian. He was an atheist, he wasn't a racist, he wasn't a deranged loser or a nutjob.
What he was was someone who saw the government of the United States murder a religious group for no good reason. He watched as those who committed the murder were absolved by the media, unpunished by the President, uninvestigated, unquestioned, and the most frightening of all to him, given a pass by the American people.
The ATF was and I would argue is to this day a fundamentally tyrannical organization. Sometimes the boot rests lightly and sometimes it presses down hard, but it is always there. We have not been truly free for some time now. The real question is was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist or a patriot?
Was McVeigh wrong to bomb the Murrah building? When do we get to that point when as Jefferson said:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"?
When does taking up arms against the government go from treason to revolution, from unlawful rebellion to restoration of the natural law?
In hindsight, of course, McVeigh was wrong. Clinton transferred power to Bush at the end of his second term, and Waco was not the beginning of a police state. He could not, however, know that at the time. Also, I think there is a case to be made that the bombing of OKC made the Clintons back off, as you can see by the Montana Freemen standoff's peaceful resolution, by the settlement of Randy Weaver's suit, and by the fact that despite there being plenty of fringe religious groups then and now, not a single one was ever laid siege too.
The accepted story about OKC is that McVeigh was a racist terrorist and that the bombing was random. McVeigh, however, always maintained that the bombing was a simple act of retaliation for the murder of the Weavers and the massacre of the Branch Davidians. See, when you put it that way, it becomes much harder to paint him as evil. If he was so violent, why didn't he kill the OK state trooper who pulled him over? Maybe because the OK state trooper had never done anything he considered destructive of liberty? If he was a simple violence junkie, why the quoting of Enlightenment philosophers, of great American statesmen, of Supreme Court decisions?
I mean, why is it that people like us love to quote Locke and Jefferson and Patrick Henry but not be willing to actually live those ideals? Locke and Jefferson are very clear about this: when the government becomes tyrannical it is the duty of free men to strike it with force in order to restore natural liberty. So the real question is a two parter:
1. In what way are Ruby Ridge and Waco not destructive of liberty?
and
2. In what way is the attack of a government building not an appropriate response to the tyranny of said government?
Yes, I know children were killed in the Murrah building. I know these children had committed no crime. I know that innocent people died in the bombing of the Murrah building. I know that McVeigh dismissed those deaths as "collateral damage". I will simply point out two things: one, that children were killed at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and two, that these events preceded OKC.
I'm not holding McVeigh up as an ideal to follow, but as a point of discussion about the issue at hand, really the most important issue of all: when is the time to take up arms? When is the time to begin resistance against the government?
I do not mean to offend with this comment, and I am not advocating acts of violence against the government or anyone else. I realize that the questions I've put forth are incredibly complex and difficult ones. I just hope that the discussion I (hopefully) spark will be a civil one.
You could also argue that McVeigh was part of a larger conspiracy connected to Al Qaida. Until Terry Nichols produces some evidence that discussion is largely pointless. It's all too easy to slip into tinfoil hat mode with the attendant CDS, ODS, Trilateralists, black helecopters, etc. We have enough to deal with as it is without endless speculation about where the line is. When that line is crossed I believe we will all know it in our hearts. Looking at the historic record I would be extremely reluctant to participate in a potential Jacobin-like movement without overwhelming evidence that there was indeed no other choice. Is ensuing bloodbath worth it? We were extremely lucky in 1775. Without the presence of all of the founders, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison especially, the result could have been far different. Look at what happened to the French Revolution.
Eagle 1
GOF -
Leave us not be forgetting that Jamey Gorlick is being bandied about for AG. You might remmember her, Mark, she's the same JG whose policies in the JD made it impossible for that computer to be searched just prior to September 11, 2001.
"DJ, numbers were from CNN Election Center. Remember only 99 percent of the vote is in so those numbers I posted above will change."
Amazing. You have demonstrated that you are capable of finding facts and showing us where you found them, and that you know why you should do so. Why is it so difficult for you to actually do it?
"So, are you saying you agree with Mssrs Delay, Rove and Cheney?"
Where did I say or mention that. You have serious reading comprehension problems for a teacher.
Why is it offensive?
Because he called people he politically disagrees with monsters. This is dehumanization. It follows that those people he calls monsters need to be dealt with in the way that all monsters are dealt with.
Interesting that you bring up "buying guns."
Why shouldn't I. It is my right as a free American and since your guy has stated publically that he wants to restrict that right(it's right there on his GD transition website), it follows that I should buy them now to show him that we won't be cowed by any potential tyrannical policies.
As far as your other blather implying that I'm a racist or what have you, the only reasonable reply to that is to tell you to go fuck yourself.
Hence the prior requests for him to do the anatomically impossible....
Eagle 1
Looking at the historic record I would be extremely reluctant to participate in a potential Jacobin-like movement without overwhelming evidence that there was indeed no other choice. Is ensuing bloodbath worth it? We were extremely lucky in 1775. Without the presence of all of the founders, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison especially, the result could have been far different. Look at what happened to the French Revolution.
___________________________________
Well there's the issue. If, god forbid, the reset button is needed, it will not be a clean war. This isn't the 1700s, and the oppressors will not be wearing redcoats or barrister's wigs. They'll be ATF agents, perhaps this new "civilian security force", however much of the army decides to stand by the tyrants, etc.
It's not going to be an army of people who are theoretically countrymen, but in reality speak English differently and are marching at us with fixed bayonets. No, it will be an elected federal government acting contrary to the Constitution. I think that civil disobedience will fail, and then armed resistance will begin. The issue is there can be no new Continental Army, it is simply impossible to raise an armored mechanized force without being defeated in detail by the vastly stronger government forces. Circumstances dictate guerrilla war.
Make no mistake about it, some may have cavalierly champion the "reset button", but we would be looking at five to ten years, minimum, of savage civil conflict. I'd like to think that a second American Civil War would be a clean one, but my knowledge of history says that is no longer possible. Following that, it's an open question as to whether or not the States can ever be united again, politically or in any real sense, no matter who wins.
____________________________________
When that line is crossed I believe we will all know it in our hearts
_____________________________________
See, that's just not true. The problem is that there is a certain population in this country who is not opposed to an intrusive State, as long as they are the ones doing the intruding. For example, Obama will not be getting rid of the Patriot Act. Because, you see, the Patriot Act is only dangerous and unconstitutional with a Republican President. A Democrat would never abuse it, don't you know. I don't think this is limited to the Democrats, I think a few of the more ridiculous Christians really wouldn't mind it either. However, the wing of the country that favors more and more of the State votes Democrat, plain and simple. This is not a partisan attack, it is a conclusion drawn from the respective philosophies of the two parties: one is for more more government, one is for less government.
See, that's the issue. A Republican President never would have ordered the Waco Siege. But, assuming one had, and events had played out just as they had in real life, then there would have been an uprising. Because everyone would have been outraged. The media would have whipped up the flames, and there would have been acts of violence if the demands for investigation and punishment were not immediately met. Because about 35% of the country is not opposed to intrusive, meddling, authoritarian government, as long as it is their bent of intrusive, authoritarian government. The media, unfortunately, is with this fraction of the population. That's why Waco is an "unfortunate incident" and the Patriot Act is "the end of American liberty".
That's why we can't all "know it in our hearts". Because for some people the line was crossed when FDR destroyed the limitations on Federal power through Court ruling, or when he interned the Japanese, or when JFK and LBJ started warrantless wiretapping, or Clinton and Waco, some think the Patriot Act.Some people think the line has yet to be crossed, some think it never will be. Most dangerous of all are the people who have different lines for different parties. They hold outstretched arms, smiling as they wait for their chains.
So yeah. There is no "we". There are two Americas. There is an America who knows the dangers of unchecked government, and an America who believes that as long as the right people are in charge, that Big Brother can be loving. They dress it up in a cloak of lies, but when the government controls your health care, the economy, how much energy you can use, where your children go to school, etc, then they own you. "They mean to rule well, but they mean to rule".
"OK, I'll bite. What catastrophes?"
Sarah, if you can't see something that obvious, then it is completely beyond my power to show them to you.
"Why is it so difficult for you to actually do it?"
I only find it "difficult" to do it when the test is rigged to force me into a response which justifies your fervent and unwavering ideology. Now's the part where you and Unix go all Joan Collins on me and accuse me of being a liar....
"It follows that those people he calls monsters need to be dealt with in the way that all monsters are dealt with."
I think all three of those men are monsters. They, in no way whatsoever, represent the spirit of this country. Just because they have an R at the end of their name doesn't mean they get a free pass. LBJ was a monster. Wilson was a racist. These are facts. Delay, Rove, and Cheney are despicable criminals whose day is now thankfully done.
Hell, the line was crossed when FDR seized the gold. I'm still trying to figure out why there wasn't a general rising then.
"Sarah, if you can't see something that obvious, then it is completely beyond my power to show them to you."
THAT'S an argument? It works on students when they're legally obligated to let you shut them up. Not here.
"when the test is rigged to force me into a response which justifies your fervent and unwavering ideology."
Demonstrate how any of their tests would do this. You haven't.
"'It follows that those people he calls monsters need to be dealt with in the way that all monsters are dealt with.'
I think all three of those men are monsters. They, in no way whatsoever, represent the spirit of this country. Just because they have an R at the end of their name doesn't mean they get a free pass. LBJ was a monster. Wilson was a racist. These are facts. Delay, Rove, and Cheney are despicable criminals whose day is now thankfully done."
....aaaand you just completely confirmed he statement regarding your beliefs.
Damn. You've lost so much credibility I'm having second thoughts about even posting this.
"These are facts. Delay, Rove, and Cheney are despicable criminals whose day is now thankfully done."
Prove it. That's why we are buying guns. Because your ilk calls a political disagreement a criminal act. Calls them monsters. I assume you think they should be tried and shot. You are filled with hate and to make it even more sickening, you project your hate onto us and no doubt teach it to the kids in your care.
And when your messiah does the same fucking thing as the party you hate, YOU WILL DEFEND IT.
The difference is, we will condemn it just as we have condemned Bush when we have disagreed with him.
Now's the part where you and Unix go all Joan Collins on me and accuse me of being a liar....
Mark, we don't just accuse you of being a liar. We point out examples of you lying.
Unrefuted examples, I might add. Johnny Cochrane couldn't get you acquitted given those examples.
You are a liar. Not because of what we said, or what we feel, but because of what you've done.
it is completely beyond my power to show them to you.
It's completely beyond your "power" to admit that you've lied to us. Even when repeatedly pointed at blatant and obvious examples. You'd better believe it's "beyond your power" to explain to us the "Catastrophe" of the Bush administration. Hell, you can't even correctly identify where Bush is politically, much less name the "cornerstones" of "conservative thought". You can't even face up to easy issues like your lying. No, it's no surprise it's "beyond your power" to show us something that would be difficult, at best, for someone honest and intelligent. Someone who has to think for a living. Hell, someone who's demonstrated intellectual processes before. For you? Yes, far beyond your power.
when the test is rigged to force me into a response
In other words: When I'm asked for facts or proof, or to not creatively redefine words.
Delay, Rove, and Cheney are despicable criminals whose day is now thankfully done.
What crimes have they committed?
There's more evidence - that you ignore - of your continual dishonesty - than there is that they've committed crimes.
Oh, wait, that's one of those loaded questions asking you for facts and honest answers again. You'll feel free to ignore it, I'm sure.
Unix,
If this was a court of law, he would be found guilty of slander; accusing people of being monsters and criminals without bringing any facts or even attempting to list their supposed crimes.
That's why they're called useful idiots - blind idolatry renders them senseless as Mark so ably displays; "and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers."
That why among the Big Lefties they are so highly regarded, too.
The power of Mark's arguments just leave me stunned. Hiding behind the "well if I HAVE to tell you, you still wouldn't get it" dodge. WTF.
'Splain it to us Mark. If your argument is SOOOOOO strong, SOOOO obvious and SOOOOO smart back up your assertions. Put your money where your mouth is.
What Catastrophes?
Nobody has forced you to give any particular answer, all we ask is that you back up your answer with facts and then cite them. "Because I Said So" doesn't cut it. That you have never (at least as long as I've been reading your comments) backed anything up with facts and then cited your source except once above in this post, tells us everything we need to know about your intellectual honesty.
If Rove et al. are in fact criminals why aren't they in jail? Just because you don't agree with their politics doesn't constitute a criminal offense. If Bush is Hitler WTF aren't you in a camp or taking the dirt nap? Are you really looking to criminalize dissent? You might be surprised at the reaction you get to that one. Watch what you ask for.
Eagle 1
"Sarah, if you can't see something that obvious, then it is completely beyond my power to show them to you."
As I noted before, when you are asked a question or are asked to support your blitherings with verifiable facts and an analysis thereof, you nearly always respond in one of four ways. This response is your standard response #2, yet again.
"I only find it "difficult" to do it when the test is rigged to force me into a response which justifies your fervent and unwavering ideology."
It's not a "test", teacher, it's simply a request for you to explain YOUR OWN STATEMENT. No, you find it utterly impossible to do when when you are asked to substantiate and/or explain a statement which you made that comes from a Random But Important Sounding Statement Generator set on Make It Sound Like I Know Shit. They're YOUR statements, you blithering jackass, and asking YOU to substantiate and/or explain YOUR OWN STATEMENTS has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH ANYONE ELSE'S IDEOLOGY.
You still haven't realized that you aren't intelligent enough to fool anyone, have you? You are a phony from the ground up, and you keep demonstrating it.
I'm telling you, Marky's a script. Part Mad Lib, part Turning test AI.
"...part Turning test AI."
Are you suggesting Mark is functionally complete?
Hey, even the most loathsome form of life on the planet can reproduce itself.
Hey, even the most loathsome form of life on the planet can reproduce itself.
Yes, but trial lawyers don't reproduce biologically.
A woman went to see her doctor, but there didn't seem to me anything wrong.
"So, why are you here?" asked the doctor.
"Well, it's that.. you see.. My husband... he, he, he.. he wants to have... YOU KNOW... sex, but NOT THERE. You know, back ... THERE!" she finally stammered out.
"I see," said her doctor, "so why did you come here?"
"Well, I just didn't know if, you know, you can do that, if it's safe.. or .. you know.. a good idea, and I wanted to ask someone who would know, you know?" she stammered.
"Well, I appreciate you coming in to see me, and if you're comfortable with it, anal sex can be a very rewarding experience if you want to do that. Don't let him force you. Just be sure to use lots of lube, go slow, and use a condom so you don't get pregnant," the doctor replies.
"PREGNANT? What... HOW?" the woman exclaims.
The doctor snorted and said, "Where do you think lawyers come from?"
Britt asks The real question is was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist or a patriot?
I don't think I particularly care for a person who has to consider that a debatable point.
A patriot does not murder innocent people. Plain and fucking simple.
Sarah, if you can't see something that obvious, then it is completely beyond my power to show them to you.
Are you for real, Mark?
But you've given me a great idea: I'm going to use this when my students ask me tough questions. "If you have to ask, you'll never know. Next question!"
I'm telling you, Marky's a script. Part Mad Lib, part [Turing] test AI.
Russ -- That's scary. I was just about to say the same thing.
c *****
read(5,*) question
if(question.gt.iq) then
call deflect
endif
subroutine deflect
write(6,*) ' If you have to ask, you'll never know. '
c *****
Britt asks The real question is was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist or a patriot?
I don't think I particularly care for a person who has to consider that a debatable point.
A patriot does not murder innocent people. Plain and fucking simple.
___________________________________
So when the government did the exact same thing, a premeditated attack on a building that they *knew* contained women and children that was....what exactly?
You know, we bombed the crap out of Germany and Japan. We killed thousands of innocent people, and thousands of children. So thus, according to your logic, the pilots of the B-17s were also not patriots.
Why is it ok to kill for the government in response to tyranny but not ok to kill members of the government in response to their tyranny?
Timothy McVeigh considered Waco to be a crime, a heinous act of tyranny far worse then any in American history. He acted on that belief by killing those who were responsible.
This is not the issue at hand though. The issue at hand is simply this: Why is it that we are supposed to read Locke and Jefferson, but the actual violence part is considered to be a forbidden topic of discussion?
McVeigh, it can be quite easily argued, acted in a Lockean manner performing his duty as a citizen of a free state being hijacked by tyrants and rebelled against the government.
Again, we all like to pretend that when (I no longer believe it to be "if", sadly) the trolley jumps the tracks and violence begins, that the stalwart champions of American liberty will form up in rank by fife and drum and be lead by the ghost of Washington to victory over the tyrannical government in a glorious battle on a gently rolling sunlit field. It will not happen like that at all. I don't know how it will start, nor do I want to predict how, but the media and the government will call them American terrorists, and traitors, and all other manner of terrible names.
In fact, it is far more likely that Waco and OKC will, in hindsight, come to resemble Bleeding Kansas or Harpers Ferry as distant claps of thunder echoing in advance of the coming storm. I hope I'm wrong, but as Lincoln said:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."
Go back to geekwitha45:
The fact that things have gone so far south in some places that people actually feel compelled to move the fuck out should frighten the almighty piss out of you.
Ten or fifteen years ago, I would’ve dismissed that notion, that people were relocating themselves for freedom within America as the wild rantings of a fringe lunatic, but today, I’m looking for a real estate agent.
We're at that point. If I'm wrong, great I look like an alarmist Chicken Little. That's great because being wrong means that the best years of my life will not be consumed by civil war.
I have not had a civil political discussion ever. I'm pretty young, but the average political discussion lasts five to ten minutes and ends with me being called a racist, a fascist, or a warmonger. See again looking at history, civil conflict happens when the common ground vanishes, when a no mans land appears. No, the solution is not bipartisanship and the centrification of American politics. The issue is that there is a large percentage of the country, who I fear is getting larger every year that thinks there natural rights include the ability to vote themselves ever increasing sums of other people's money simply because they can. The idea of limited government is almost completely dead in America. The tree of liberty is withered and scarred, ruined by the strangling vine of statist politics and the rot of an apathetic and decadent populace.
I am almost totally convinced that right now, the American people really don't care about liberty. I'm afraid that there is no consensus as to the value of freedom. Again, a large portion of the people of this country would rather exist as well cared for subjects rather then free citizens.
In Starship Troopers, Heinlein writes of the collapse of America, and the reason he gives is that in a democracy people eventually get to the point where they think they can vote themselves whatever they want. Right now, as GM prepares to receive a cash infusion courtesy of the Democratic Party, can you really say we aren't at that point?
There is a huge gulf, a huge gap. Facts do not matter, logic does not matter, massive amounts of historical example does not matter to some in this country. So when some becomes most, do we leave, do we fight, do we hide, do we give up?
Because I don't see this as a winnable situation. Every time I bother counting more and more people are contemptuous of small government, of liberty, of the Constitution. They seek the freedom of the trough and the stable: the freedom to say "It's not my fault, I'm not in charge." Because that's the root cause, to me. The idea was that We The People would govern ourselves. Now it seems like again a large portion of the people are all too willing to allow others to rule them, so long as they get their welfare checks. It's all downhill from that point.
Can this be reversed, can this slide into decline and back into bondage be checked? How?
"Yes, but trial lawyers don't reproduce biologically."
"They reproduce by fission... like all bacteria." -- Heinlein
He was talking about seargents, not lawyers, but it applies.
"Can this be reversed, can this slide into decline and back into bondage be checked? How?"
Watch what happens. We'll have opportunities per the Constitution's normal methods in two years and in four years. Jimmy was out in four. Shall we bet on Barry?
Geez, you'd think I never learned to proofread, and it's getting worse.
That's "sergeant", not "seargent".
Sigh ...
I remember thinking after the '92 election when Billy Jeff only got 43% of the vote that he'd only have 4 years.......
Lots of us thought it would be easier than it was. It depends on how far The Messiah over-reaches, who we put up, and if the Stupid Party figures out that pork-barrel spending and big government "solutions" are largely what got us where we are now. I wouldn't be too cocksure that The One can be held to a single term.
Eagle 1
Well, I'm not cocksure about any such thing. I'm ruminating on possibilities, not probabilities, hence my question, "Jimmy was out in for. Shall we bet on Barry?"
It's called "Hope For Change", right?
DJ:
Jimmy was out in four. Shall we bet on Barry?
Not at this moment. His "magic" is still strong. And that's before he starts shredding what little investigation into voting irregularities and false registrations exists.
And likely pushes for a massive amnesty for Mexicans living in America. Despite Reagan's championing of the last amnesty, CA's never once gone (R) since. Bring in 10-15M currently-illegal into the system...
We'll have to see, but at the moment, it's looking really, really bad. The press is still running interference (now they're trying to damp down expectations and pass the message that hey, those tax cuts, yeah, well, bad idea).
They're left-wing Democrats, no matter what idiocy Mark comes up with to say otherwise. They see this as a "good thing". They'll see the almost-certain cementing of the (D) majority for years to come as a great thing.
We'll have to see, but it ain't looking good right now.
"We'll have to see, but it ain't looking good right now."
No disagreement here. The possibilities are based on the improbability that those who voted for His Royal Highness will receive the pink unicorns farting rainbows and fat checks that they appear to expect. Disillusionment will set in, eyes will open, and we'll have change, by gum. The betting would be about the what and when of change.
Britt, you're a racist, a fascist, or a warmonger.
*snicker*
Welcome to the club.
He acted on that belief by killing those who were responsible.
No he didn't. He killed some federal employees and their kids and who else I don't know (but I rather imagine included innocent bystanders). He did NOT kill a single FBI or ATF agent that was on the scene in Waco or in the chain of command.
I wouldn't condone the latter either. Those responsible should be in federal prison, not in federal offices. I am 100% for holding them FULLY accountable - including lawfully administered capital punishment. That we have never done so is a national disgrace. But some lone fucko with a gun or a bomb is NOT lawful punishment. He was a loser before the bombing; and the bombing in no fucking way ennobled him. He lived and died a miserable excuse for a person and he is NO patriot in my eyes. Even contemplating that thought is an insult to people who ARE patriots and do not deserve to have their service and sacrifice demeaned by comparison to a scumbag.
But if you can't see the huge difference, you are a person I personally don't trust with a spoon let alone anything that can actually hurt another human being. You are exactly the kind of gun-owner that will end up costing me legal ownership of my guns. Just like Vanderboegh.
My younger brother was at work, seven blocks north of the Murrah building, when the bomb went off on its south side. He was not hurt, but the buildings around where he worked suffered direct damage from the blast.
Oklahoma City is where I was raised up; this is HOME. McVeigh gets no sympathy from me.
He did NOT kill a single FBI or ATF agent that was on the scene in Waco or in the chain of command.
____________________________
Yeah, and we never got around to hanging King George III either.
That's the way it works, you very rarely get to kill the bastards who are really responsible.
We had to slaughter thousands of German civilians and as good as murder a bunch of scared or fanatical teenage conscripts so we could get to the Nuremburg trials. You think the Ostruppen wanted to machine gun Americans at Omaha Beach? Do you think we wanted to kill a bunch of Poles and Russians who had pistols at their backs?
Would I have done the same? No, I probably would have bitched about it and then gone back to my life. He didn't. There is a difference between condoning something, and understanding something. You can understand evil (sometimes) even when you condemn it.
I wouldn't condone the latter either. Those responsible should be in federal prison, not in federal offices. I am 100% for holding them FULLY accountable - including lawfully administered capital punishment. That we have never done so is a national disgrace. But some lone fucko with a gun or a bomb is NOT lawful punishmen
__________________________________
What then when laws fail, or when those charged with their enforcement are unwilling to do so?
These are not idle musings or empty questions. What do you do when those chosen to "establish Justice [and] ensure domestic tranquility" are unable or unwilling to do so? Or do we let the evildoers get away with it, in the hope that they will be taken care of in the end by karma, or punished in the next life by the Almighty?
__________________________________
You are exactly the kind of gun-owner that will end up costing me legal ownership of my guns. Just like Vanderboegh.
___________________________________
If words like mine on a computer screen are the thing driving gun confiscation and the erosion of liberty then maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't with my exercise of free speech.
Yeah, and we never got around to hanging King George III either.
Which was a good thing you ignorant imp. We waged a PR campaign against a tyrannical monarchy when all of our complaints lay in Parliament. You might want to read about Burke's defense of the colonials.
What do you do when those chosen to "establish Justice [and] ensure domestic tranquility" are unable or unwilling to do so?
We vote. And unless you buy the leftie bullshit about Diebold, et al - you aren't going to tell me that elections don't matter are you?
Now the very sad truth is that we keep voting in the same lame excuse for politicians. You, and ten thousand like you, aren't going to change that with [threats of] violence. All you will succeed in doing is creating enough fear in enough people to fully justify (in their minds) a police state crackdown.
Disagree with gun control - don't create excuses for it.
What was Uncle's quote? Don't scare the white people?
Eagle 1
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>