PDA

View Full Version : Bush is ...


Pages : [1] 2

Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Taliesin
08-18-2006, 04:03 AM
A Senior Labour politician - normally criticized for his unintelligible comments (and for punching a protester who threw an egg at him) his made the observation that "Bush is C--p".

It is widely considered in the UK to be the most accurate and succinct description of the only American president who cannot demonstrate he was democratically elected.

I'm just curious how our cousins across the pond were aware of these comments, and how they regard them.

Mark Freeman
08-18-2006, 04:19 AM
David,

John Prescott was reported to have said ( in a private meeting) that Bush's ( or rather his administration's ) handling of the middle east peace proccess was crap, which is not the same as you report above.

Our cousins across the pond deserve the correct information before they can regard it properly ;)

regards,

Mark

Leiv
08-18-2006, 07:04 AM
Well your cousin Leiv thinks he is an embarrassment to the United States.

Dirk Hanss
08-18-2006, 07:08 AM
Our cousins across the pond are not allowed to reply. This thread is subject to Homeland Security investigations.


Dirk

Mark Uttech
08-18-2006, 07:13 AM
I don't know how anyone will take this observation, but whether we like him or not, he "is" the president. Power is a curious and a dangerous thing, like electricity. It becomes a life challenge to us to learn what to do with it, it certainly must be very challenging for the president to handle power.

Leiv
08-18-2006, 07:23 AM
..... it certainly must be very challenging for the president to handle power.

I get the feeling that it is challenging for him to handle a pop-up book.

shodan 83
08-18-2006, 07:58 AM
This sums it up nicely.

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher (whose hand
was caught in a gate while working cattle), the doctor and the old man
struck up a conversation about George W. Bush being in the White House.
The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post turtle'." Not being
familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle'
was. The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you
come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post
turtle."
The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to
explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there,
he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just want to help
the dumb bastard get down!"

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 08:08 AM
David,

John Prescott was reported to have said ( in a private meeting) that Bush's ( or rather his administration's ) handling of the middle east peace proccess was crap, which is not the same as you report above.

Our cousins across the pond deserve the correct information before they can regard it properly ;) Isn't Prescott the Brit politician that is suspected of being on the take? Wait.... let's focus on Bush.

Luc X Saroufim
08-18-2006, 08:42 AM
i personally believe he has the foreign policy of a baked potato.

Hogan
08-18-2006, 08:56 AM
Isn't Prescott the Brit politician that is suspected of being on the take? ....

The same one that punched a heckler, and had an extramarital affair, and had most if not all of his portfolio taken away from him, and....

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 09:04 AM
The same one that punched a heckler, and had an extramarital affair, and had most if not all of his portfolio taken away from him, and....Ah, but he's a liberal Labour guy, so those trifles don't matter. We do the same thing over here... laws don't really apply to any Democrat politician caught breaking the law, making racist statement, etc. Our news media coverage of errant liberals is restricted to only one day, while any Republican can bask for days in the glow of a misdeed. Hell, liberals will spend their whole day devoting one thread to constant character assassination, just to prove which side is on the moral high ground. ;)

Mike

Mark Uttech
08-18-2006, 09:08 AM
So the post by Eric Lingswiler addresses the situation very well. Do you stand about, making fun of the poor turtle, or do you help the turtle get off the fence post? See, it is true that he did not get there by himself; not a single one of us has gotten where we are singlehanded. The dilemma of the whole world stands on this one principle. In gassho

Mark

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 09:11 AM
So the post by Eric Lingswiler addresses the situation very well. Do you stand about, making fun of the poor turtle, or do you help the turtle get off the fence post? I think I saw the preferred answer on the bumper-sticker of a car yesterday:

"Someone give him a blowjob so we can impeach the Idiot!"

However, I don't know if Bush would be willing to switch Party affiliations. ;)

gdandscompserv
08-18-2006, 09:51 AM
This sums it up nicely.

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher (whose hand
was caught in a gate while working cattle), the doctor and the old man
struck up a conversation about George W. Bush being in the White House.
The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post turtle'." Not being
familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle'
was. The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you
come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post
turtle."
The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to
explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there,
he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just want to help
the dumb bastard get down!"
Yeah, that's it!

Mark Freeman
08-18-2006, 10:05 AM
Interesting responses,

I pointed out that the report was of Prescott's view of the US administration's handling of the ME peace process. Of course Prescott has been hauled through the media machine recently for some of his obvious gaffs, nonetheless he has been a pretty solid politician for around 3 decades, so his view might count for something. Also you can't call him a liberal labour guy, that in this current party is an oxymoron, we have a liberal democrat party for the liberals. Prescott is the close to what can be termed an 'old' labour politician, as opposed to the 'New' labour that currently runs the roost over here.

There was no personal attack on GWB, that has all come from the posters here. ;)

regards

Mark

Taliesin
08-18-2006, 10:16 AM
Interesting replies

I particularly liked John Hogan's reply

"The same one that punched a heckler, and had an extramarital affair, and had most if not all of his portfolio taken away from him, and.... "

Nice to see that supporting behavior that result a mass of death and destruction put in it's appropriate context when compared to some really horrific behavior.

Still if you don't have the ammunition to attack the message, attack the messenger.

Maybe that's why the criticism of GWB is about his action while attempting to get appointed President and his behavior ever since.

But since you appear think it's the person presenting the argument rather than the merit of the argument is most relevant point let me rephrase the question

Do you think that alcoholic junkie should really be trusted in a position of power?

shodan 83
08-18-2006, 10:29 AM
I think I saw the preferred answer on the bumper-sticker of a car yesterday:

"Someone give him a blowjob so we can impeach the Idiot!"

However, I don't know if Bush would be willing to switch Party affiliations. ;)

If you want bumper sticker quotes, I love this one:

Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its Idiot.

James Davis
08-18-2006, 11:01 AM
Nice to see that supporting behavior that result a mass of death and destruction put in it's appropriate context when compared to some really horrific behavior.

FDR led us into World War II.

Germany never attacked us; Japan did.

>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...

an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.

North Korea never attacked us.

>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...

an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.

Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.

>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost

an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.

Bosnia never attacked us.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.


The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.



It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.

That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick


Do you think that alcoholic junkie should really be trusted in a position of power?
Nope, and neither should womanizers and murderers.

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 11:07 AM
Interesting replies

I particularly liked John Hogan's reply

"The same one that punched a heckler, and had an extramarital affair, and had most if not all of his portfolio taken away from him, and.... "

Nice to see that supporting behavior that result a mass of death and destruction put in it's appropriate context when compared to some really horrific behavior.

Still if you don't have the ammunition to attack the message, attack the messenger. Isn't that a pretty silly response, given that Prescott was doing the name-calling and Bush has never said a word about Prescott? I love how civilized the UK is, though. Look at their economy and crime rate and how dirty the cities are. Shouldn't we focus a few threads on how bad other people are, or is there some fixation about Bush? Right. Bush fixation it is. :)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 11:46 AM
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. Well, to me the Branch Davidian thing is a lot like what goes wrong in Iraq and Lebanon and Palestine... so much time is wasted trying to not hurt the wrong people and/or offend them that ultimately it winds ups killing more people and offending more than if the job had just been done expeditiously.

I know the Branch Davidian thing is a big deal with some of the Far Right, but hey, they were all there willingly and willingly resisted lawful orders. Sorry it happened.... but...

Same thing in Palestine and Lebanon.... the people democratically voted Hezbollah and Hamas into power; it's a wide-open game now. (Although, to be fair, many Lebanese note that the Syrians of first generation are the ones who mainly voted in Hezbollah).

I.e., the "hearts and minds" stuff doesn't really work so well *during* a conflict; better save it for later.

Love these BS sessions. ;)

Mike

Taliesin
08-18-2006, 11:50 AM
Mike -

get a dictionary for your birthday - that way you won't have to use words you don't understand.

If someone is regarded and described continually as 'the leader of the free world' are you saying it is unreasonable to criticize him no matter how bad a job he does. Why should there be a fixation when he is 'the most powerful man on the planet'. Is it 'silly' to worry about his judgment. Are you saying it's unfair to scrutinise the people in power more than those who aren't

Anyway - the description was a response to John Hogan who felt it was the only way to reply was to criticise precot as a person.

Still, as you are such an expert - perhaps you can tell me which UK cities you are talking about being dirty (assuming you know), what you seem to think is wrong about the economy, and of course how many people get shot and murdered in the UK. (I'm sure it's far cleaner and safer in Detroit - if you want to proceed down this road)

And once you've done that - you can explain why you are unable to defend the sainted GWB either as far as his actions as President are concerned, or given his own personal background.

James

regarding your thread

WWII - Japan was a declared ally of Japan

Korea was a UN action (it took place because the Soviet Representative stormed out instead of vetoing)

Vietnam - Can't say I can be clear about the origins - but weren't there any Republican Presidents between 1962 and 1975 (the name Nixon comes to mind)

Bosnia - Wasn't that NATO - Peacekeeping (like Kosovo)

Iraq - they didn't attack you either (and it wasn't peacekeeping either)- still it's good to know the War in Iraq is over - it's great to see what a country at peace looks like.

Now that I've responded to those points perhaps you'd answer the question about whether the description of Bush (or his foreign policy) as C--p is a fair one or not.

Kevin Wilbanks
08-18-2006, 12:34 PM
I don't see how this can be considered news to anyone who is even slightly informed about the world. The Bush administration's foreign policy is considered crap (or worse) worldwide, the only exceptions being a few wealthy people who benefit from it directly, some people in Israel, and a significant (though still minority) portion of the US public whose primary or only information source is television shows and radio talk shows. Moreover, for all except a very tiny few wealthy and powerful who are getting massive benefits, it actually IS crap. The PNAC people and the fundamentalists are making a headlong push for a giant world war between the west and the middle east for reasons having to do with insider economic opportunity and crazy apocalyptic theology/ideology. How could it not be crap for most people?

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 12:44 PM
I don't see how this can be considered news to anyone who is even slightly informed about the world. The Bush administration's foreign policy is considered crap (or worse) worldwide, Bzzzzzzzzzt. Appeal to authority. The "whole world" is on your side. Good one. Very elitist. Is there any way to discuss issues without the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" constantly raising it's head? Try "Bush is wrong because....".

Regards,

Mike Sigman

shodan 83
08-18-2006, 01:02 PM
Bzzzzzzzzzt. Appeal to authority. The "whole world" is on your side. Good one. Very elitist. Is there any way to discuss issues without the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" constantly raising it's head? Try "Bush is wrong because....".

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike this would be a PhD dissertation; lets take a few examples;
1) left Afghanistan before the job was done.
2) Was handed a balanced budget and proceeded to plunge the country into massive debt.
3) Invaded a country because the leader once threatened to kill his daddy.
4) removed CIA tracking of Bin ladin before 9/11 as he did not believe in the threat, Clinton came closer to killing bin ladin than W ever will.
5) Believes that evolution is only a theory and creationism as promoted in the new testament is more plausible.
6) Lacks command of his native language

Come on; even my most right wing friends no longer believe the emperor is wearing any clothes.

Ron Tisdale
08-18-2006, 01:30 PM
OK, thanks Eric...a naked Bush is an image I just didn't need on a Friday afternoon... :yuck: :hypno: :crazy:

It's bad enough when he has clothes on! :D
Best,
Ron ;)

shodan 83
08-18-2006, 01:38 PM
OK, thanks Eric...a naked Bush is an image I just didn't need on a Friday afternoon... :yuck: :hypno: :crazy:

It's bad enough when he has clothes on! :D
Best,
Ron ;)

Sorry Ron, I hope lunch stays down and this doesn't interfere with tonight's brews.

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 02:23 PM
Mike this would be a PhD dissertation; lets take a few examples;
1) left Afghanistan before the job was done. We've left Afghanistan???? 2) Was handed a balanced budget and proceeded to plunge the country into massive debt. Did anything else happen that helped? Does the recession that started in the last days of the Clinton administration count? How about 9-11... would that have been a factor we could maybe just stretch a little so that it wasn't all Bush's fault??? ;) 3) Invaded a country because the leader once threatened to kill his daddy. That's why he did it? No other reason at all? Why on earth did Congress support it if that was the reason? Are those guys crazy???? :D 4) removed CIA tracking of Bin ladin before 9/11 as he did not believe in the threat, Clinton came closer to killing bin ladin than W ever will. That's a new one on me. The CIA quit tracking Bin Laden? Can you give me a definitive source or just an opinion from someone? Don't forget I am sadly saddled with a fairly factual engineering mind that likes to see all the facts laid out carefully before decisions are made. I don't tend to work well on "intense feelings". ;)
5) Believes that evolution is only a theory and creationism as promoted in the new testament is more plausible. Bear in mind that I'm not into creationism at all, Erik, but I'm pretty sure that I heard Bush try to propound "Intelligent Design" and that it should be taught as a sort of legitimate alternative within the school system. I have never seen a quote where, as you assert, he said evolution is only a theory. That would have registered loud in my consciousness. Can you give me a quote/source? Thanks. 6) Lacks command of his native language Hmmmmm.... well, we could say that of a lot of blacks, hispanics, and whites from New York or Georgia. Should we use that fact to hold people up to ridicule, do you think? I'm axing you, should we diss da man fo sump'n lak dat? :D Come on; even my most right wing friends no longer believe the emperor is wearing any clothes.I never cared for him much. I would have preferred that Evan Bayh have run. However, Kerry was even dumber in Yale than Bush was and besides, Kerry was caught in a LOT more lies and he also signed off on some military guys who it turns out, were unfortunately still in POW camps at the time. Russian records released in the early 1990's said that 247 Americans were still in POW camps when Kerry signed off. It's one of those little things that may be OK in some circles, but I personally hate leaving American service people to die. But that's just a weakness I have. Other than that, I would have preferred we had 2 other candidates.

Regards,

Mike

Ron Tisdale
08-18-2006, 02:31 PM
We've left Afghanistan????

No, unfortunately we're not only still there, but we're still fighting there...maybe if the forces given to Iraq were still in Afghanistan at least one theater would be not quite so damn messy.

But hey, I don't really know anything about any of this stuff...I'm just trying to operate on common sense here. ;)

Best,
Ron (my dad always said to finish the first fight before you pick another one)

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 02:44 PM
No, unfortunately we're not only still there, but we're still fighting there...maybe if the forces given to Iraq were still in Afghanistan at least one theater would be not quite so damn messy. I don't think it matters what we do. There is no way to straighten out those culturally tribal areas of the world... they always revert to tribalism, corruption, warlords, etc.

This idea of "we should just go get Bin Laden" is one I like to watch. It would mean going into Pakistan and alienating the ally we need in that area. An impasse. Of course we could just go in and do it and get off this "hearts and minds" BS, but we tend to defer too much to world opinion. So people who say "Bush didn't finish the Osama job", I always want to know how they would do it, given that Pakistan is really only half an ally. Notice also that the would-be London bombers last week were Pakistanis, for the most part.

Regards,

Mike "Wish It was as Simple as the Out-of-Power Party says" Sigman

Neil Mick
08-18-2006, 02:46 PM
Firstly, a tip of the hat to James Davis...the only Conservative (is it fair to call you that? Apologies, if not) posting here so far who hasn't crossed the "personal attacks" line, and who thereby remains off my ignore list.

Nice work, James.

Now then...I'm sure that most know my opinion of Bush (or, think that they do); but I bet I'm going to surprise some of you in my response :cool: :cool: , and side with a few of (what I imagine are, as I blissfully cannot see them) Mike Sigman's remarks.


I'm just curious how our cousins across the pond were aware of these comments, and how they regard them.

Firstly, it has to be noted that Prescott "officially" denied (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1155883860365B216) that he made those comments.

British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott denied Thursday a front-page report in a major newspaper that he had called US President George Bush "crap" and "a cowboy".

Labour MP Harry Cohen was quoted in The Independent as saying that Prescott - in charge of the government whilst Prime Minister Tony Blair is on summer holiday - made the remarks at a private meeting in London on Tuesday.

"He was talking in the context of the 'road map' in the Middle East," Cohen said. "He said he only gave support to the war on Iraq because they promised the road map."

"But he said the Bush administration had been crap on that. We all laughed and he said to an official: 'Don't minute that'."

Cohen added: "We also had a laugh when he said old Bush is just a cowboy with his Stetson on. But then he said: 'I can hardly talk about that, can I?'."

So, officially: Prescott denies the remark. Also (if he DID say it), he was talking about the ME policy.

Now, let's talk about the personal remarks, of W. I'm a little on the side of Mikey on this one, believe it or not. Sure, the Bush Administration can be called the worst Presidency in US history, but a little context is in order.

He didn't get to where he was, all by himself. Clinton was no saint, either. His Admin was responsible for the Sanctions, responsible for the deaths of over a million Iraqi's, most of them children.

Bush also has the rest of gov't to thank, as well. He couldn't have done it without the assistance of a largely supine Congress, a Supreme Court that selected him into his first term, or a mass-media that is so cowed by the Bush Admin, that they don't even report when the hides of their colleagues are on the prosecutorial chopping block. (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/)

It (Bush Admin) also happens to be well on its way to obtaining the power to criminally prosecute journalists for articles they publish about the administration's conduct. And while all of that has been happening, the Washington Post Editorial Board has said virtually nothing about any of it, sitting idly by while the President vests himself with what George Will calls "monarchical" powers that (at least) rival terrorism as a threat to our country, and while Attorney General Alberto Gonzales casually speculates about putting Jim Risen and New York Times editors (and perhaps even the Post's own Dana Priest) into a federal prison, just as his most prominent supporters have been urging.

So, Bush didn't do all of this damage, all by himself. He had a lot of help from quarters where he should have been more under scrutiny. And, I think that it lets too many journalists and gov't'l bodies off the hook, to simply lay in all at W's feet. It's oversimplistic, and dangerous...even Prescott's comment about being a "cowboy."

Sure, the guy is uneducated about the world (and doesn't want to be...as recently as 2002, Bush was reported to not have known that there were 2 sects in Iraq), (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/08/ambassador_bush_didnt_know_there_were_two_sects_of_islam/)

A year after his "Axis of Evil" speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq's first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites. Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, "I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!"

but the real issue is, what makes the guy tick? Is he really stupid?

In Bush's own lexicon: it's dangerous to "misunderestimate" him. Recent reading has given me a little insight into some of the workings of power, at the Big White Mansion. The whole Iraq-thing, for instance, was the result of two plans, not one...a plan set forth by the NeoCon's (partly beholden to Israel), represented by Wolfewitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, et al: who wanted to go in, privatize the oil and drive the price of oil way down as a backdoor swipe at OPEC and Saudi Arabia; and the oilmen, represented by Cheney (et al): who wanted to nationalize the oil as a means to regulate the flow, in service to the dictates of OPEC.

As you can see by the line of deposed NeoCon's: the oilmen largely won the battle.

But, what about W? I'm no mindreader, and so I only get a few pieces, after the fact. But, just looking at his far-Right Christian base, you have a dangerous mix of focused power in a man not given to thoughtful introspection. Christian Right lobby-groups are bragging, for instance, how they personally held off the Lebanese invasion peace-process for a whole month, through intense lobbying.

Worse, the man seems to rule by his "feelings" or "gut," as he likes to call it. In spite of Syria's repeated attempts (even, personal letters that have been unanswered) to communicate, to share information, W remains adamant. He knows who his allies and enemies are, and he won't budge, from his feelings.

This is a dangerous quality to have, in being the leader of the largest military on the planet, and in history.

Worse yet, the man seems to have a "Churchill" complex, thinking that he, as Churchill, will be more fondly remembered in the years after he's gone. He seems bent on making his Messianic "mark" in history...I wouldn't be surprised if he imagines (that is, if he DOES imagine, in his private thoughts) himself in some future history-book, extolling his "brave" adventurism.

I know one thing...President's are ALL dangerous, it seems--but the REAL danger to the world will be in the 6 months when this guy becomes a lame duck (Aug ''08 - Jan '09). I will breathe easier, after Jan '09, no matter WHO gets elected. :(

Ron Tisdale
08-18-2006, 02:57 PM
Ah, Neil...when you ignore someone...you really are supposed to ignore them...aren't you? Taking shots when you aren't listening to the response doesn't seem ... well, seemly...

B,
R

Neil Mick
08-18-2006, 03:03 PM
Taking shots when you aren't listening to the response doesn't seem ... well, seemly...

B,
R

Gosh, I thought I was actually providing a thoughtful compliment... err, sort of (in a, um, backhanded sort of way...) :blush: :cool:

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 03:05 PM
Now, let's talk about the personal remarks, of W. I'm a little on the side of Mikey on this one, believe it or not. Sure, the Bush Administration can be called the worst Presidency in US history, but a little context is in order. Actually, even leftist history professors tend to agree that Carter was probably the worst president. He was able to botch everything, brought in the Marielitas, gave away the Panama Canal (making thinks *worse* all around for everyone), double-digit inflation, botched the Iran thing and didn't support the Shah (ultimately causing American hostages), and so on and so on. Even the Dem's wouldn't vote for him when he ran again.

Interestingly, among all the "Do Good" things that Carter did was to get the famous "FISA courts" thing going. Basically, Carter was trying to give away some of the power of the presidency (he tried to give away all of the US that he could, so why not just a little more?). The problem with the FISA court is that it goes against the stated comments in the Federalist Papers that in times of war (believe it or not, we're in one and the Congress voted on it, so it's official) the president gets to run most things to do with the war. This is done for dispatch, organization, secrecy, etc.

Even a number of the FISA court judges think that their very existence is sometimes against the constitutional separation of powers... the judiciary should not have the power to overrule the president in times of war on war-related matters. In fact, the whole "War Powers Act" is probably unconstitutional.... the president does not, according to many legal scholars on both sides of the fence, have to ask Congress if it's OK to declare war. Both FISA and the War Powers would almost certainly be struck down if challenged in the Supreme Court.

But Carter did a number of things that he thought would help bring peace to the world.... almost every one of them has back-fired. He's my vote (yes, I like to fudge and bet on a sure thing) for the worst president the US has ever had. Did anyone see the quickly-glossed-over story where he told the Arabs how John Bolton would vote and Bolton didn't so Carter started screaming to the White House that Bolton had "embarrassed the US" because he didn't vote the way Carter had told the Arabs he would???? Amazing.

Mike

Kevin Wilbanks
08-18-2006, 03:23 PM
To start with, your criticism of my first comment was fallacious. Misapplying a textbook logical fallacy shows the ability to google a fallacy page, but not much understanding. I did not mention world opinion to validate negative claims about Bush. I mentioned it because it is the subject of this thread. People seem to think it is noteworthy that someone overseas called their foriegn policy crap. I pointed out that it's about as noteworthy as saying someone was seen breathing air.

Actually, even leftist history professors tend to agree that Carter was probably the worst president. He was able to botch everything, brought in the Marielitas, gave away the Panama Canal (making thinks *worse* all around for everyone), double-digit inflation, botched the Iran thing and didn't support the Shah (ultimately causing American hostages), and so on and so on. Even the Dem's wouldn't vote for him when he ran again.


Speaking of fallacies, I won't dissect all of the ones in your post or even this chunk. Instead, I'd like to see a list of the leftist history professors you cite.

Also, I'd like to understand how not supporting the Shah was our major error in Iran and the cause of the hostage taking. I thought it was the fact that we used the CIA to overthrow their democratically elected government a couple of decades earlier and inserted a brutal dictator so that British and US oil companies could have access to their oil.

Mark Uttech
08-18-2006, 03:29 PM
Life really is amazing, that is why it never pays to get sidetracked by political bickering. 9/11 was an example of the United States getting a taste of terrorism that has been going on for years in many other places, just never here. Terrorism is part of the "cries of the world" that we ignore at out own peril. I stated in an earlier post that the current president of the US is indeed like a 'post turtle', but we, who do nothing, are stuck like turtles on our own posts. In gassho

Mark

Neal Earhart
08-18-2006, 03:39 PM
Hmmmmm.... well, we could say that of a lot of blacks, hispanics, and whites from New York or Georgia. Should we use that fact to hold people up to ridicule, do you think? I'm axing you, should we diss da man fo sump'n lak dat? Mike

What a bigoted statement. This is really offensive.

I love how civilized the UK is, though. Look at their economy and crime rate and how dirty the cities are. Shouldn't we focus a few threads on how bad other people are [Mike Sigman

Bashing our ally...nice

Islam has contributed nothing positive to civilization if over 300 years....I don't think you can change Muslims.... I think ultimately they will only accept force, not diplomacy and payoffs.

I see you are also bashing an entire religion for the actions of the extremist/fundamentalist minority factions. I hope you spew the same bile towards Christians, when a Christian fundamentalist blows himself up in front of an abortion clinic killing innocent people or explodes a van in front of a government buliding in Oklahoma.

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 03:41 PM
I did not mention world opinion to validate negative claims about Bush. You said:

The Bush administration's foreign policy is considered crap (or worse) worldwide, the only exceptions being a few wealthy people who benefit from it directly, some people in Israel, and a significant (though still minority) portion of the US public whose primary or only information source is television shows and radio talk shows

"Worldwide".... Yes, you did say it. Goodbye credibility.

Mike

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 03:50 PM
What a bigoted statement. This is really offensive. How about a bigoted statement about Bush's south-Texas accent? Or do you only talk about accent-putdowns on a selective basis? (I can't believe someone actually took the bait and called me a name... tsk, tsk.) I see you are also bashing an entire religion for the actions of the extremist/fundamentalist minority factions. I hope you spew the same bile towards Christians, when a Christian fundamentalist blows himself up in front of an abortion clinic killing innocent people or explodes a van in front of a government buliding in Oklahoma."Bigoted"? "Bashing"? Are you used to argument by name-calling where you're from? It's a cool tactic, but usually dropped after someone gets past sophomoric argument (and no, I didn't just accuse you of being a tenth grader).

You can believe that Islamic actions are the results of only a few, but worldwide, every major terrorist group is Islamic, at the moment. "Islam" is not just a religion; it is also a civic code. In that civic code it calls for the destruction of infidels and even names Jews (whom it calls "pigs"), Christians, and any other non-beliver in their god, Allah. That is not just a "religion", unfortunately. If you don't understand that the "Sharia Law", the civil law of Islamic countries is part of what you blithely call their religion, you've missed something obvious. I don't believe in being "anti" anyone, but I don't believe in being stupidly in denial, either.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neal Earhart
08-18-2006, 04:30 PM
How about a bigoted statement about Bush's south-Texas accent?

A "south-Texas accent" does not denote an individual's race. You chose to associate race i.e. "blacks, hispanics, and whites" to your comment, suggesting that race plays a part in a person's command of their native language.

Mark Uttech
08-18-2006, 04:30 PM
Timothy McVeigh was not a muslim

James Davis
08-18-2006, 04:41 PM
Well, to me the Branch Davidian thing is a lot like what goes wrong in Iraq and Lebanon and Palestine... so much time is wasted trying to not hurt the wrong people and/or offend them that ultimately it winds ups killing more people and offending more than if the job had just been done expeditiously.

I know the Branch Davidian thing is a big deal with some of the Far Right, but hey, they were all there willingly and willingly resisted lawful orders. Sorry it happened.... but...
Yeah, but who's your source? The press that ignored their pleas for help? The Branch Davidians hang out the window a giant white sheet with the words "GOD HELP US. WE NEED THE PRESS.". They wanted to talk. They were met with ridicule. The press on the scene responded with a video tape of a bunch of buffoon reporters yelling, "God help us, we ARE the press!". (Chuckle, chuckle. Chortle Chortle. :grr: )

An ATF agent that was climbing on the outside of their compound sidled up to an upstairs window and made himself easily visible as a silouhette. Not a smart thing to do. Branch Davidian sees a man's silouhette blocking the sun in the window. A man with a large gun. He fires against the intruder in defense of himself and everyone else in the compound, and the ATF takes it personally. Out of anger and vindictiveness, the ATF agents made it about "winning" and "losing".



Love these BS sessions. ;)

Mike

Me too.

Kevin Wilbanks
08-18-2006, 04:42 PM
You said:

The Bush administration's foreign policy is considered crap (or worse) worldwide, the only exceptions being a few wealthy people who benefit from it directly, some people in Israel, and a significant (though still minority) portion of the US public whose primary or only information source is television shows and radio talk shows

"Worldwide".... Yes, you did say it. Goodbye credibility.

Mike

I think your credibility would improve if you focussed less on trying to assasinate the character of those arguing against you and omitted statements like that last one that are obviously emotive attempts at bullying people into a conclusion which they would rather draw for themselves.

I know what I said, and repeating it doesn't illustrate anything except that you think it implies something that it doesn't. There is no argument from authority in my post. I think it's clear now that you either don't really know what one is or do not understand what I wrote. I claimed that most people who aren't either directly benefiting from the administrations policies or awash in propaganda don't like them, because the policies are bad for them. Whether true or false, it is the opposite of the misinterpretation which you find self-evident: that his policies are wrong because people don't like them.

I guess I'll stop here. In reviewing the thread and this small exchange, it's clear you are impervious to reasoning and unwilling or unable to provide citation or plausible explanation for the assertions you make. I doubt you are influencing anyone's opinion here that isn't similarly oriented, so there is no point in responding further. You are offering the same diet of baseless assertions, fallacies, constant topic changes, and heavyhanded bluster that is all over the AM radio dial and Fox channel, which I also avoid.

James Davis
08-18-2006, 04:42 PM
Timothy McVeigh was not a muslim
I don't think he was really a Christian, either.

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 05:00 PM
Yeah, but who's your source? The press that ignored their pleas for help? The Branch Davidians hang out the window a giant white sheet with the words "GOD HELP US. WE NEED THE PRESS.". They wanted to talk. They were met with ridicule. The press on the scene responded with a video tape of a bunch of buffoon reporters yelling, "God help us, we ARE the press!". (Chuckle, chuckle. Chortle Chortle. :grr: ) Well wait a minute.... I have to admit that I just laughed at what you wrote. Why, uh, didn't they just obey the order to come out and THEN speak to the press? I.e., they resisted arrest and bad things happened.... but *they* willfully chose their own path. How is that the government's fault? Not that I'm pro-government... I'm just anti-blame-placing bullshit that is not really true. An ATF agent that was climbing on the outside of their compound sidled up to an upstairs window and made himself easily visible as a silouhette. Not a smart thing to do. Branch Davidian sees a man's silouhette blocking the sun in the window. A man with a large gun. He fires against the intruder in defense of himself and everyone else in the compound, and the ATF takes it personally. Out of anger and vindictiveness, the ATF agents made it about "winning" and "losing".That poor innocent guy.... being called on to give up and then mistakenly firing on an ATF guy. Bad things happen at the worst times, don't they? ;)

Mike

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 05:05 PM
A "south-Texas accent" does not denote an individual's race. You chose to associate race i.e. "blacks, hispanics, and whites" to your comment, suggesting that race plays a part in a person's command of their native language.You mean people with accents are just dumb, then. All of 'em? Or just Bush? My point was that making fun of accents is not a nice or a safe thing to do... nor is it fair. Now quit playing politically correct and outraged and self-righteous, all rolled into one.


Mike

James Davis
08-18-2006, 05:05 PM
Firstly, a tip of the hat to James Davis...the only Conservative (is it fair to call you that? Apologies, if not) posting here so far who hasn't crossed the "personal attacks" line, and who thereby remains off my ignore list.

Nice work, James.

Thanks.

He didn't get to where he was, all by himself. Clinton was no saint, either. His Admin was responsible for the Sanctions, responsible for the deaths of over a million Iraqi's, most of them children.
Weren't those UN sanctions? Weren't we all responsible for them? Wasn't the Oil For Food program supposed to take care of that problem? Doesn't corruption suck?

Bush also has the rest of gov't to thank, as well. He couldn't have done it without the assistance of a largely supine Congress, a Supreme Court that selected him into his first term, or a mass-media that is so cowed by the Bush Admin, that they don't even report when the hides of their colleagues are on the prosecutorial chopping block. (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/)
Yeah. Even Democrats were eager to vote for going to war, but in all fairness wasn't pretty much the entire nation pissed off at the time? Speaking of supine, has Bush vetoed anything yet?


So, Bush didn't do all of this damage, all by himself. He had a lot of help from quarters where he should have been more under scrutiny. And, I think that it lets too many journalists and gov't'l bodies off the hook, to simply lay in all at W's feet. It's oversimplistic, and dangerous...even Prescott's comment about being a "cowboy."

Attention, all:

For the record, there is nothing wrong with being a cowboy. I've known quite a few, and I've ridden with a couple of them. They're alright.



Christian Right lobby-groups are bragging, for instance, how they personally held off the Lebanese invasion peace-process for a whole month, through intense lobbying.

Who?! :disgust:

Worse, the man seems to rule by his "feelings" or "gut," as he likes to call it. In spite of Syria's repeated attempts (even, personal letters that have been unanswered) to communicate, to share information, W remains adamant. He knows who his allies and enemies are, and he won't budge, from his feelings.

This is a dangerous quality to have, in being the leader of the largest military on the planet, and in history.

Yes. At the other end of the spectrum we have Clinton, who looked for poll results to see what the people wanted him to do at every turn. While there's nothing wrong with being part of the general public, WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO MILITARY INTELLIGENCE!!

Duh! :drool:

:D
Worse yet, the man seems to have a "Churchill" complex, thinking that he, as Churchill, will be more fondly remembered in the years after he's gone. He seems bent on making his Messianic "mark" in history...I wouldn't be surprised if he imagines (that is, if he DOES imagine, in his private thoughts) himself in some future history-book, extolling his "brave" adventurism.

Bush is definitely no Churchill. Winston came up with some great gems that appear in a lot of books of famous quotations. He was a smart-ass. That's why he's one of my heroes. :)

I know one thing...President's are ALL dangerous, it seems--but the REAL danger to the world will be in the 6 months when this guy becomes a lame duck (Aug ''08 - Jan '09). I will breathe easier, after Jan '09, no matter WHO gets elected. :(

Me too. Admittedly, there's a lot wrong with Bush, but many people hated him long before the election was over. Hated him. I hope that someone is elected with a minimum of controversy, and we can get on with our lives.

Jeb is a great governor; I really like the guy. I hope he stays the hell out of the race for the presidency, though. Way too many people would dislike him for no reason besides his name.

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 05:11 PM
9/11 was an example of the United States getting a taste of terrorism that has been going on for years in many other places, just never here. Bad ole America. Finally got spanked and they deserved it, eh? It was our turn to "get a taste", as it were. Anyone else in the world you wish ill upon? No, I suppose not.

Mark Uttech
08-18-2006, 05:20 PM
No. I remember reacting with tears when i thought about the families of the 214 marines thaqt got blown up in Lebanon

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 05:24 PM
Jeb is a great governor; I really like the guy. I hope he stays the hell out of the race for the presidency, though. Way too many people would dislike him for no reason besides his name.I don't have any particular feelings about Jeb Bush, but then again I don't live in Florida and watching what the press does to spin someone is one of my hobbies.

Speaking of what the name "Bush" means, I like to compare what Bush's name has become to liberals (because of the extreme emotional reaction that borders on hysteria.... read a Neil Mick post and you'll see what I mean). But just to give you an idea of how bad the press and the Left Wing has spun his name (remember, I'm no great fan), let's take the name "Bush" and stick it with some things another president has done... and I'll avoid Clinton, since that's so obvious.

But let's say that George W. Bush does the things that JFK did, as an example. How would the public react and how loud would the press scream if Bush:

1. Fumbled and almost allowed nuclear arms to be placed on an offshore island?

2. Made his own brother the U.S. Attorney General?

3. Was screwing everything with a heartbeat, including an intern and a movie star?

4. Had a war record that included getting his PT boat run over by an enemy destroyer (that would have been instant court-martial for anyone in the service except for Joe Kennedy's son).

5. OK'd an invasion of Cuba to free it from the communists, but refused to give them the needed logistical back up?

6. Started a war .... oops, we've gone full circle.


The point is, the "Bush" name is what the press makes of it. Some 76% of all Bush stories by the mainstream press are negative toward Bush. And then people are amazed that his poll numbers go down. If only his name had been "Kennedy", the American public would be fed with such a mass of admiring publicity that there'd be a statue of him on top of every microwave. ;)


Mike

Brad Pruitt
08-18-2006, 05:33 PM
Mike,
You really haven't learned when to stop have you ? You seem to paint yourself into a corner and then try to argue your way out of it.
What For ??????

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 05:37 PM
Mike,
You really haven't learned when to stop have you ? You seem to paint yourself into a corner and then try to argue your way out of it.
What For ??????Hi Brad!

Are you still beating your wife?

Regards,

Mike

Hogan
08-18-2006, 06:14 PM
Interesting replies

I particularly liked John Hogan's reply

Thanks!

Do you think that alcoholic junkie should really be trusted in a position of power?

Hmmm... good question. But what US President, Middle Eastern / European Dictator/Leader and/or Royal are we talking about?

Neal Earhart
08-18-2006, 08:58 PM
You mean people with accents are just dumb, then. All of 'em? Or just Bush?

Nowhere did I negatively comment on accents other than quoting your post. So, don't put words into my mouth, or post in this case...

My point was that making fun of accents is not a nice or a safe thing to do... nor is it fair.

I am in complete agreement, making fun of a person's accent isn't acceptable behavior.

Now quit playing politically correct and outraged and self-righteous, all rolled into one.
Mike

I apologize for being very respectful of other people, their race, and beliefs. The ethnic and cultural diversity of our country is wonderful. It is what made America great. I am very happy to live in New York City, the most diverse city in the USA, for that reason.

I have been in parts of this country where books related to Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism are found in the "Occult" section of the local bookstore, right next to the "witchcraft" and "healing through crystals" titles. While Baptist and Christian fundamentalist texts are displayed in the "Religion" section. Now that's what I call religious tolerance :mad:

You can believe that Islamic actions are the results of only a few, but worldwide, every major terrorist group is Islamic, at the moment. "Islam" is not just a religion; it is also a civic code. In that civic code it calls for the destruction of infidels and even names Jews (whom it calls "pigs"), Christians, and any other non-beliver in their god, Allah. That is not just a "religion", unfortunately. If you don't understand that the "Sharia Law", the civil law of Islamic countries is part of what you blithely call their religion, you've missed something obvious. I don't believe in being "anti" anyone, but I don't believe in being stupidly in denial, either.

What still bothers me is your assault on the entirety of the religion of Islam and the majority of it's followers. I have co-workers and friends who are Muslims, who are also American citizens and they participate in the electoral process. Which is more than I can say for some people I know, who are more than willing to criticize elected officials, but they themselves have never voted once in their lifetime.

I have read the Qur'an and Bible. The Qur'an doesn't teach hatred or violence towards others any more or less than the Bible does. Where religion goes awry is when the extremists construe/interpret the teachings to promote violence for personal gains, whether political, economic, and/or religious oppression.

Leiv
08-18-2006, 09:12 PM
Hi Brad!

Are you still beating your wife?

Regards,

Mike

What was that you said about name-calling being a cool tactic and sophomoric? Is it as cool a tactic as personal attacks? Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought stones and glass houses didn't mix.

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 09:13 PM
I apologize for being very respectful of other people, their race, and beliefs. The ethnic and cultural diversity of our country is wonderful. It is what made America great. That is just pc garbage. "Diversity" didn't make (verb) anything. There is diversity in this country. There are also great resources, wealth, intelligence, work ethics (declining), and so forth. "Diversity" has never been proven to "do" anything other than to provide social and cultural background. Many European countries are far more "diverse" than we are, particularly in the polyglot areas, but the racial mixture is not as great as in the US. "Diversity" is a vague term. Background studies on the contributions of "diversity" have mixed results. I.e., it's a nice topic, but you seem to over-emphasize diversity for some reason. Personally, I judge people by what they can do, regardless of how "diverse" we are when we're doing things. I am very happy to live in New York City, the most diverse city in the USA, for that reason. Really? I find New York to be very stressful and full of contention. I sort of dislike having to check all my bags and coat when I walk into a store because the crime rate in New York is so high that they don't trust anyone. Not the sort of place I think is the most desireable. But each to his own.
I have been in parts of this country where books related to Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism are found in the "Occult" section of the local bookstore, right next to the "witchcraft" and "healing through crystals" titles. While Baptist and Christian fundamentalist texts are displayed in the "Religion" section. Now that's what I call religious tolerance :mad: Ah... so you're tolerant of some things, but not of others, then. That's what I meant in a recent post that some of the most intolerant people I know are the ones who think they're the most tolerant. Of course, though, I can see that you are a man of true compassion. Would you mind telling me where you saw this? I've been all over the country and I haven't seen anything like you described. What still bothers me is your assault on the entirety of the religion of Islam and the majority of it's followers. I have co-workers and friends who are Muslims, who are also American citizens and they participate in the electoral process. Which is more than I can say for some people I know, who are more than willing to criticize elected officials, but they themselves have never voted once in their lifetime.

I have read the Qur'an and Bible. The Qur'an doesn't teach hatred or violence towards others any more or less than the Bible does. Where religion goes awry is when the extremists construe/interpret the teachings to promote violence for personal gains, whether political, economic, and/or religious oppression. Well, if you've read the Koran and haven't seen where they call Jews pigs then you didn't read the whole thing. Show me where the Bible calls for Jihad, BTW.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 09:16 PM
What was that you said about name-calling being a cool tactic and sophomoric? Is it as cool a tactic as personal attacks? Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought stones and glass houses didn't mix. No, it was a joke. Let me explain it. The conversation was going along fine until suddenly there is this negative post addressing me personally. Not an objective topic... a personal diatribe that was presumptive in what it said. I responded in kind rather than say something scathing or with animus. I did it light-heartedly. Now you see the joke. I simply get tired of people who only want to discuss the personal and who contribute nothing of substance about any issue. You? How do you feel? Do you think personal feelings and observations should be injected into a conversation?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Leiv
08-18-2006, 09:40 PM
I feel it was in poor taste. You could be a bigger man and simply ignore it. Your joke will only provoke more negativity directed at you.

Mike Sigman
08-18-2006, 09:47 PM
I feel it was in poor taste. You could be a bigger man and simply ignore it. Your joke will only provoke more negativity directed at you. Perhaps. It is an "Open Discussion" area and of little consequence other than as a time-killer. Perhaps an offhand joke is a good way to let someone that they crossed the personal line needlessly. In my martial arts career we learned to be blunt but careful not to needlessly provoke people by making personal comments. But I'm glad you took the time to correct me.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
08-18-2006, 10:54 PM
Thanks.
Weren't those UN sanctions? Weren't we all responsible for them? Wasn't the Oil For Food program supposed to take care of that problem? Doesn't corruption suck?

James,

If you're going to be willfully obtuse: this conversation won't get very far.

YES, those were UN Sanctions. But (as you forgot to mention), YES: the US and Britain were responsible for the continuance of those Sanctions, and exactly what got on that list.

Yanno, dangerous stuff, like yogurt machines, agricultural equipment, and vaccinations against childhood diseases (and NO, these vaccines could not have been "weaponized:" even...to quote a WHO scientist..."in a science fiction scenario").

And, YES, the Oil for Food was supposed to take care of that problem...a committee whose last 2 Directors resigned, because they stated that the program, and its operation, were criminally underfunded, and a form of collective punishment, on the Iraqi people.

Three guesses, which superpower held up the extra funding,,,?

And YES, corruption sucks...just like, when the Coalition Prov Authority seemingly "lost" $5B in aid. :grr: Whoops! :uch:

Corruption, apparently, is partisan-blind. But, if we were counting coup: I'd say that Abramoff, "the Hammer," et al: put the Republican's well past the mark, by a few furlongs, at least.

Yeah. Even Democrats were eager to vote for going to war, but in all fairness wasn't pretty much the entire nation pissed off at the time?

Pissed off and scared, by overhyped rhetoric and intel cherry-picked, by W's Admin.

The devil is in the details...a point you often forget to mention.

Speaking of supine, has Bush vetoed anything yet?

Only once (for a bill that 72% of American's supported).

But with signing statements, (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html) who needs 'em?

Attention, all:

For the record, there is nothing wrong with being a cowboy. I've known quite a few, and I've ridden with a couple of them. They're alright.

So long as they don't run the country.

Personally, I'd rather have a leader and a diplomat, run the country, rather than a "shoot-from-the-hip" sort of guy. Call me an alarmist, but I get a little worried, when that "shot" entails trillions of dollars of weaponry.

Who?! :disgust:

David Brog, lobbyist for Christians United for Israel (if you want to hear something REALLY scary, listen to John Hagee (who, I might add, shares the same enthusiasm for Churchill, as you)rant on (http://www.cufi.org/media/DC2006/1%20-%20Pastor%20John%20Hagee.mp3) at their summit in 7/06).

Christians United for Israel: New Christian Zionism Lobby Hopes to Rival AIPAC (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/15/1326256)

David Brog claimed to me that their principal achievement has been keeping a ceasefire off the table for the past month.


Yes. At the other end of the spectrum we have Clinton, who looked for poll results to see what the people wanted him to do at every turn. While there's nothing wrong with being part of the general public, WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO MILITARY INTELLIGENCE!!

Duh! :drool:

:D

Fine. Politicians suck, et al, ad nauseum, yadda yadda yadda.

But, I seem to forget when Clinton threw Consitutional limit of powers into crisis; I lost that list of times Clinton bugged the phone calls (foreign and domestic) of American's; and my memory fades when trying to recall the time Clinton's Admin outed a CIA operative; destroyed the American school system (death by underfunding); or tried to rewrite Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Perhaps you could, um, "refresh" my memory?

No? Thought not. :p

Bush is definitely no Churchill. Winston came up with some great gems that appear in a lot of books of famous quotations. He was a smart-ass. That's why he's one of my heroes. :)

Yeah, he also was a big proponent of firebombing major cities, and gassing Arabs.

Some hero! :rolleyes:

Me too. Admittedly, there's a lot wrong with Bush, but many people hated him long before the election was over. Hated him. I hope that someone is elected with a minimum of controversy, and we can get on with our lives.

Yes. Bush came on presenting himself as a Centrist Republican, a "uniter, not a divider..." the first of many lies.

I think that more people are energized to participate in government, which is a good thing...but I also concur that the polarization is not. Too much bad blood.

Brad Pruitt
08-18-2006, 11:45 PM
Hi Brad!

Are you still beating your wife?

Regards,

Mike
Mike,
I did ask you a question. I do believe you must be more ignorant than you come across in print. That would be really hard to do but I think you took the gold.The reason I did ask is I read through this thread and then comes you and you pretty much take all the enjoyment out of a "discussion" between a group of pretty reasonable people. Maybe that's what you do in your life and why you don't have a wife. I'm sorry if I hit some kind of nerve with you. I wasn't trying to start something with you but by the way you respond to just about everything I guess I should have known.I kind of feel sorry for you, like the turtle.

Leiv
08-19-2006, 02:42 AM
we learned to be blunt but careful not to needlessly provoke people by making personal comments.

Well you certainly have the being blunt part down, but I am not quite sure about the latter.

Neal Earhart
08-19-2006, 07:40 AM
I sort of dislike having to check all my bags and coat when I walk into a store because the crime rate in New York is so high that they don't trust anyone. Not the sort of place I think is the most desireable. But each to his own.

Learn something about the crime rate in NYC before you post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_ny_crime.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/28/ny.crime.stats/index.html

I was in Durango a few years ago for an industry conference. Stayed at the Tamarron (sp?) resort. As you said, to each his own. I just prefer cities where there are things to do.

Ah... so you're tolerant of some things, but not of others, then. That's what I meant in a recent post that some of the most intolerant people I know are the ones who think they're the most tolerant. Of course, though, I can see that you are a man of true compassion. Would you mind telling me where you saw this? I've been all over the country and I haven't seen anything like you described.

It is amazing how you put words into peoples mouths and misconstrue posts. This was solely used as an example of some of the religious intolerance that exists. BTW, the above the was found in a bookstore in a stripmall outside of Chattanooga. I don't know if store still exists, since it has been a several years since I lived there.

Mike Sigman
08-19-2006, 08:25 AM
Well you certainly have the being blunt part down, but I am not quite sure about the latter.If you notice, neither you nor Bradl has contributed anything but personal comments. I assume it's because that's the limit of your ability to communicate. I haven't seen anything substantive from you in any other threads on the forum, either. So at the moment you appear to not be able to rise above the continued personal remarks and your taking "Aikido" seems to be some sort of personal cry for help from you. I simply don't want to become involved with your problems.

You sit there and butt in about how people should "rise above"... yet all you did was make personal remarks, as did Brad. Try to get some idea of how I view you, based on that. The way to a discussion that involves people even who are personally dislikeable, I've found, is to try to keep them engaged in substance and not personal remarks. I seem to have failed with you two.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-19-2006, 08:32 AM
Learn something about the crime rate in NYC before you post: Why should I "learn about it"? It's high enough that everyone looks at each other suspiciously, ID is required for every transaction you do, you're required to check your bags and coats by impolite sales personnel, the chances of getting killed or mugged are high, etc., etc. You know it. I know it. You're trying to conversationaly not admit it, so there's an element of dishonesty in your presentation. I was in Durango a few years ago for an industry conference. Stayed at the Tamarron (sp?) resort. As you said, to each his own. I just prefer cities where there are things to do. One of the things you can do in Durango is rent cars and leave your hotel. After that, there are plenty of things to do. Actually, you could have done a pretty adventuresome hike down to the Animas River from Tamarron, but that would have involved walking someplace in rugged terrain with beautiful scenery... not much compared to the joys of NYC, I admit.

Heck, next time you're here, look me up and we'll do a couple of rounds to see what your Aikido can do against some rube from out in the sticks. ;)

Mike Sigman

Neal Earhart
08-19-2006, 08:59 AM
Why should I "learn about it"? It's high enough that everyone looks at each other suspiciously, ID is required for every transaction you do, you're required to check your bags and coats by impolite sales personnel, the chances of getting killed or mugged are high, etc., etc. You know it. I know it. You're trying to conversationaly not admit it, so there's an element of dishonesty in your presentation.

I believe then you should generalize your comment to "small towns" versus "big cities." Because I can assure you visiting cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami, and many other large U.S. cities, when you walk into some stores, malls, etc. you will be required to check you bags, etc.

And if you took a look at the crime stats, you'll see that my safety in NYC is better than the cities I just mentioned and many others with populations >500k.

One of the things you can do in Durango is rent cars and leave your hotel. After that, there are plenty of things to do. Actually, you could have done a pretty adventuresome hike down to the Animas River from Tamarron, but that would have involved walking someplace in rugged terrain with beautiful scenery... not much compared to the joys of NYC, I admit.

We had trip on what I remember as a "Narrow Train" through the mountains and couple organized hiking trips. I will not disagree, it was very beautiful.

Heck, next time you're here, look me up and we'll do a couple of rounds to see what your Aikido can do against some rube from out in the sticks. ;)

Rounds ? Sounds like a competition ;) But, I would be glad to practice with you in class. As I take my Gi and Hakama with me whenever I travel on business, when I know I'll have an evening or two free.

Neal Earhart
08-19-2006, 12:45 PM
ID is required for every transaction you do, you're required to check your bags and coats by impolite sales personnel,

After thinking a bit and adding my wife's input, neither of us remember the last time we had to check our bags or our coats upon entering a store to shop in Manhattan, with the exception of CompUSA. I also don't remember the last time anyone has asked me for additonal ID when shopping, beyond my credit card.

New York also doesn't have a monopoly on impolite sales people. In the stores in the area of Manhattan that I live, I would say that the vast majority of sales people are extremely helpful and courteous. The staff at Whole Foods market are fantastic. However, I must say the staff at Tower Records does seem to have cornered the market on "surly" behavior.

But, I have found rude people in the retail and service industries all across the U.S.

Leiv
08-19-2006, 08:18 PM
If you notice, neither you nor Bradl has....
Blah blah blah....

Mike Sigman

Clearly you are right. I am obviously the one with problems.

Mike Sigman
08-20-2006, 05:53 PM
I believe then you should generalize your comment to "small towns" versus "big cities." Because I can assure you visiting cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami, and many other large U.S. cities, when you walk into some stores, malls, etc. you will be required to check you bags, etc.

And if you took a look at the crime stats, you'll see that my safety in NYC is better than the cities I just mentioned and many others with populations >500k. OK, no problem... except I wasn't talking about other large towns; I was talking about NYC. Obviously the crime rate is high enough that it affects commercial transaction, person-to-person relationships, etc. All I was saying was that I found it something I'd prefer to leave out of my life. Chicago, Philly, Miami, etc., each have their own problems, too. Large cities tend to have problems that I'd prefer to avoid. And, just for the record, I have actually lived in Miami, Atlanta, Houston, and Denver in my life. I'm not some guy who's never been anywhere or done anything in big cities. New York City is in a class by itself. We had trip on what I remember as a "Narrow Train" through the mountains and couple organized hiking trips. I will not disagree, it was very beautiful. It's "Narrow Gauge Railroad", meaning that the tracks are narrower than on a normal train route (this was common in the mountains). I've never ridden that train, although it goes along the river behind my house (other side of the river, though). However, I've kayaked the rapids on the Animas River in the gorge that you road through and I own a second home in Silverton, the place at the end of your trip. I also spend a lot of time on a fast motorcycle on those mountain roads. There are things to do, trust me. ;) Rounds ? Sounds like a competition ;) But, I would be glad to practice with you in class. As I take my Gi and Hakama with me whenever I travel on business, when I know I'll have an evening or two free. :cool:

Mike

Mike Sigman
08-20-2006, 05:56 PM
Clearly you are right. I am obviously the one with problems. I sort of thought so. Take a look at your comment about George Bush (insert anyone's name in there; I'm talking about your attitude). Then look at your holier than thou idea about how people should be "bigger" than to make demeaning personal remarks. It's a common role I see a lot of fairly vicious people play... that they're in on the "AikiSpeak" side of life. It's a role; it's right there in your posts.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-20-2006, 05:59 PM
But, I have found rude people in the retail and service industries all across the U.S. Fair enough. I do tend to visit electronics stores, jewelry stores, etc., more than other places. However, NYC is a place where someone has to always be vigilant and every hotel and business place has inordinate security reflecting that fact of life. I'm just saying that I prefer not to be needlessly on guard my whole life. Each to is own. I almost said "some of my best friends are New Yorkers", but I'll forego the humor for once. ;)

Mike

Brad Pruitt
08-20-2006, 06:41 PM
Mike,
It's nice to see you're back on your medication.

Neil Mick
08-20-2006, 08:57 PM
I didn't know that this thread was called, "Mike Sigman is..."
Can we pls stay on topic, and ignore the local troll? You're giving him just what he wants: an audience.

Mike Sigman
08-20-2006, 09:16 PM
One of the interesting points in the history of World War II was Churchill's comment about how absurdly easy it would have been to stop the empowerment of Nazi Germany if the people had only acted in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, most of Europe was doing everything it could to avoid war at any cost and appeasement was the only strategy that anyone would stand for. Hitler actually became the lauded hero of many on the Left. After the war, none of the Left stepped forward to indicate that they had been grievously wrong, so wrong that more than 20 million people died; including the Jews, who both France and England were aware were being killed in the concentration camps. The BBC was then, as now, a platform for the Left.

The Churchill biographies note mostly in passing that the BBC systematically barred Churchill from discussing his defense and foreign policy views during the 1930's; Sir John Reith was head of the BBC at the time. Manchester states that "Reith saw to it that [Churchill] was seldom heard over the BBC..." Reith wrote of Churchill in Reith's monumentally voluminous diaries, "I absolutely hate him."

In 1938 Churchill was scheduled to appear on the BBC for a half-hour talk -- on the Mediterranean. When the Czech crisis erupted, Manchester reports, Churchill asked that the program be cancelled. On the Saturday before Parliament's debate on the Munich Agreement, Churchill agreed nevertheless to meet with (future Communist spy) Guy Burgess of the BBC. Churchill complained to Burgess, according to Burgess's recollection, that "he had been very badly treated in the matter of political broadcasts and that he was always muzzled by the BBC."

Why did Reith detest Churchill? In Reith's eyes, Churchill was of course a warmonger, and Reith, not coincidentally, held Hitler in the highest regard. How little times have changed.

Now the world is full of little Neil Micks having the same hates as Reith did. Thanks in part to Powerline for some of the above.


Mike Sigman

Taliesin
08-21-2006, 07:58 AM
Mike

Churchill was not an infallible saint. He was responsible for one of the biggest debacles of WW1. He sent troops into Tonypandy with orders to shoot to kill, he was a big supporter of Eugenics and he acted to break the General Strike of 1926. He also threw away his pistols to claim he was a journalist when captured in the Boar War

So it's clear he made huge mistakes - He was however right about Hitler.

Quite where the evidence is that Reith was a supporter or fan of the Nazi's I don't know (Do you?)

The only other question I have is how far to the far right are you. (Anyone who thinks the BBC currently has a bias to the left must be rubbing shoulders with Genghis Khan)

BTW - you forgot the UK had a coalition Government during WW11

Mike Sigman
08-21-2006, 08:38 AM
Churchill was not an infallible saint. He was responsible for one of the biggest debacles of WW1. He sent troops into Tonypandy with orders to shoot to kill, he was a big supporter of Eugenics and he acted to break the General Strike of 1926. He also threw away his pistols to claim he was a journalist when captured in the Boar War Without getting drawn into the attempt at character assassination, why are you shifting the conversation directly to the personal level? Interestingly enough, even though there is a lot of talk about "AikiLove", etc., this forum seems to have an unusually large number of people who personally attack anyone they don't like (I realize this is an open discussion, but the same people also get very excited when someone replies personally to them. :freaky: ). Can we stick with the issues, please?So it's clear he made huge mistakes - He was however right about Hitler. The point was NOT that Churchill was right about Hitler.... the point was that a lot of the peace-loving Left, most of whom against Churchill and were FOR unilateral disarmament, were completely wrong and it was the direct cause leading to the deaths of at least 20 million people. They were insistent that Hitler was "just talking". Quite similar to the liberals in the Left saying that Iran's president is "just talking" and that all the Islamic countries talking about killing all the Jews are "just talking"... even though there are 700 years of Jew-killing behind it.Quite where the evidence is that Reith was a supporter or fan of the Nazi's I don't know (Do you?)http://www.dfme.org/archives/000793.htmlThe only other question I have is how far to the far right are you. (Anyone who thinks the BBC currently has a bias to the left must be rubbing shoulders with Genghis Khan) Is there a reason you're taking a cheap shot at me, other than the fact that you're fairly safe while talking from behind a keyboard? The BBC is so far to the left that the British Navy quit playing parts of its broadcasts. The Hutton inquiry chastised the BBC for leftist-leaning reports. It still has not changed its ways. The BBC is famous for its fuzzy-left thinking. How many charges have you ever seen of the BBC being too conservative? You haven't.... the BBC spends all its time defending itself against repeated charges that it is leftist; there's a reason. There have been books, etc., written by ex-BBC staff saying how conformist left they were forced to be. Personally, I used to watch the BBC when I was in Europe but the coverage just got out of hand... it's very often the case in Europe that news is deliberately omitted if it goes against liberal beliefs.... very ethical indeed.BTW - you forgot the UK had a coalition Government during WW11What you keep trying to forget in your post is that I'm right.... many, many "peace loving" Leftists were the largest impetus behind WWII, yet they still won't step up and admit it (just as you won't... what the hey, 20 million lives really means nothing to the theorists in our midsts). In France, after the war, everyone claimed to be part of "Le Resistance"... they don't like to mention their peace-loving appeasers and the fact that there were so many collaborateurs that many lawmakers in France were blackmailed up until the 1970's and 1980's.

The 20 million deaths at least deserve the respect from the Left that they admit they need to be cautious and not repeat history only 60 years later. Of course the Right has to be careful, too, but the Right does not control the news to the people via the BBC and much of our mainstream media. Anyone who has been to college (particularly one with an included journalism school) who thinks the news is not heavily staffed with liberals is living in a fantasy world. Every survey and analysis in the last 5 years shows that the media reported slants to the Left. The fact that these surveys are often not reported should be enough of a confirmation. ;)

Mike

Gernot Hassenpflug
08-21-2006, 09:27 AM
The Boar War eh? Well and good, the Rednecks are still detested in parts of my country, but please don't make it sound more inhuman(e) than it was :lol:

Mike Sigman
08-21-2006, 09:31 AM
The Boar War eh? Well and good, the Rednecks are still detested in parts of my country, but please don't make it sound more inhuman(e) than it was :lol:They were boarish, those Boers. ;) However, to be fair (in case there is a Boer reading), the current and continuing super-high crime rate in South Africa shows that there are always 2 sides to a coin and no good deed goes unpunished. ;)

Taliesin
08-21-2006, 10:31 AM
Mike

I feel quite happy in making personal comments about you because you feel perfectly justified in making personal attacks on others (like NM for example). Now if you had the guts to admit that you would at least get some respect for honesty.

your own words from your own posting

"Now the world is full of little Neil Micks having the same hates as Reith did."

I also like you blaming the 'Left' for appeasement - the Conservative Prime Minister of the time was the one who promoted appeasement, came back with ' a piece of paper' and when that didn't work eventually declared war.

As someone who actually studies Law at college - your article is what is called irrelevant hearsay - not evidence as far as Reith is concerned.

Then we have the, again unsubstantiated, assertion that "Every survey and analysis in the last 5 years shows that the media reported slants to the Left". Reports from who? when?

But i forgot you are too holy to make personal attacks you just says things like

"anyone who has been to college (particularly one with an included journalism school) who thinks the news is not heavily staffed with liberals is living in a fantasy world".

When you are able to make objectively verifiable statements of fact. And use logical reasoning to draw conclusions you will be far more effective at putting your point of view forward.

Until then you will have to put up with 'personal attacks'.

Mike Sigman
08-21-2006, 10:51 AM
I feel quite happy in making personal comments about you because you feel perfectly justified in making personal attacks on others (like NM for example). Now if you had the guts to admit that you would at least get some respect for honesty. Don't worry about my guts, David.

Insofar as Neil Mick or any other person on various forums goes, I have never made a "personal" comment to anyone who doesn't use personal attacks. For instance, if someone calls Clinton an "imbecile" or Bush a "moron" (personal attacks) and then is silly enough to act like they are "true Aiki spirits", I will be among the first to give them a hard time about the hypocrisy. You appear to think that a little hypocrisy is OK as long as you or someone who agrees with you does it.I also like you blaming the 'Left' for appeasement - the Conservative Prime Minister of the time was the one who promoted appeasement, came back with ' a piece of paper' and when that didn't work eventually declared war. Are you serious? You understand the pressure that Chamberlain was under and are fibbing or you really don't know your history. As someone who actually studies Law at college - your article is what is called irrelevant hearsay - not evidence as far as Reith is concerned. Easy to check out, though, isn't it? Instead of playing the silly game of "sources" and then "I don't agree with your sources" (a common dodge on many talk forums), why don't you simply look it up?
Then we have the, again unsubstantiated, assertion that "Every survey and analysis in the last 5 years shows that the media reported slants to the Left". Reports from who? when? Look it up. I went through this with a friend of mine, the editor of the local paper, and the Washington Times did a few reports, Pew did a survey, and there were a number of others.... when he looked at them all, he simply dropped the subject, as I'm sure you will when you look it up. But i forgot you are too holy to make personal attacks you just says things like

"anyone who has been to college (particularly one with an included journalism school) who thinks the news is not heavily staffed with liberals is living in a fantasy world".

When you are able to make objectively verifiable statements of fact. And use logical reasoning to draw conclusions you will be far more effective at putting your point of view forward.

Until then you will have to put up with 'personal attacks'. Ah, but look.... notice how when I mentioned the Hutton Report and the British Navy as support for the assertion that the BBC is liberal, you've now dropped that subject like a hot potato. You ask for support simply to waste time... you have no intention of conceding that you've lost a point, do you? There's a sort of dishonesty in that approach, but it's the kind of dishonesty that both the Left and Right engage in when "it's for a good cause", eh?

Mike Sigman

Mark Uttech
08-21-2006, 11:09 AM
This website is very rapidly becoming "the place where mike sigman went down like the titanic"

Mike Sigman
08-21-2006, 11:20 AM
This website is very rapidly becoming "the place where mike sigman went down like the titanic"Actually, if you think about it, this is fun to watch. It's on an Aikido forum and the main liberal protagonists are from Wisconsin, California, Oregon, Seattle (known liberal areas).... and the idea that there is "worldwide support", "mike sigman went down like the titanic", etc., instead of any factual commentary is pretty telling. David Chalk's sudden dropping of the BBC not being liberal (when I pointed out 2 very telling and recent incidents saying it is), your fairly predictable little hate posts, and a few others (watch where they're from... it's pretty interesting how it's liberal hotspots), it's all about as predictable as the time I got into a discussion on a forum that dominated by "Christian Karate" types. My point is that "Karate" and "Aikido" aren't really anything more than forums for some people to spout their politics and religion. You're an example. Brad Pruitt is an example. David's an example. Neil Mick is the biggest example. Sure I pull the legs of people like this... I think they dilute martial arts. But I keep the debates above the personal until someone wants to go there, don't I? You don't. And I'm not the one claiming some philosophical high ground. Strange conundrum, isn't it. ;)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mark Uttech
08-21-2006, 11:29 AM
Mike, I once looked up to you when I read your articles in "Tai Chi Magazine", where you came across as a real seeker attempting to debunk mystical theories of "Ki" and "Chi". You even endorsed the book: "Centering" claiming: "this book explains how aikido works". But on the aikiweb forum, you seem to have been caught up in some political bickering, and I don't know what to think. I wrote in an earlier post on aikiweb that politics and power were areas to avoid. I think it is pretty obvious.

Mike Sigman
08-21-2006, 11:38 AM
Mike, I once looked up to you when I read your articles in "Tai Chi Magazine", where you came across as a real seeker attempting to debunk mystical theories of "Ki" and "Chi". You even endorsed the book: "Centering" claiming: "this book explains how aikido works". But on the aikiweb forum, you seem to have been caught up in some political bickering, and I don't know what to think. I wrote in an earlier post on aikiweb that politics and power were areas to avoid. I think it is pretty obvious. Mark.... do you not see the humour in eliciting angry, personal attacks from people who claim to be peaceful searchers for "aiki" and peace? I actually think it's pretty funny, even though quite a few of them actually don't understand that it's pure hypocrisy, since they don't see themselves.

One of the reasons Aikido is so stagnated at present and has demonstrably almost no ki and kokyu skills (they're still debating what those things are even if they exist) is because the "peace and love" (which often equates to "hate the US" ) crowd is controlling too large of a segment. So yes, I think it's perfectly valid to discuss this aspect of things on an Aikido forum.

I get the impression, from what you said above, that none of the various hate-spewings, etc., by other people on AikiWeb means much to you... mainly because you agree with them. So if you want to try to make an issue of "political bickering" as being some bad sign about me, why haven't you ever mentioned it about anyone else??????? If someone is a hypocrite and they dishonestly present one-sided facts, they're fair game, Mark. The question is why you think the person questioning the hypocrites is in the wrong, isn't it?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mark Uttech
08-21-2006, 11:50 AM
Anyone can get a wrong impression. I have responded to some of the liberal posts in a way that I am surprised you lump me into their camp. I think I am simply trying to point out that the political bickering has gotten way out of hand on aikiweb. I

James Davis
08-21-2006, 11:59 AM
James,

If you're going to be willfully obtuse: this conversation won't get very far.
Just trying to be part of the clique. ;)


The devil is in the details...a point you often forget to mention.

The devil is in the details.




But with signing statements, (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html) who needs 'em?

What a load of crap!! If the bill shouldn't be a law, then veto it!! What the heck is the point of someone saying that they don't like something, and signing it into law anyway?!




Personally, I'd rather have a leader and a diplomat, run the country, rather than a "shoot-from-the-hip" sort of guy. Call me an alarmist, but I get a little worried, when that "shot" entails trillions of dollars of weaponry.

None of the cowboys that I know have ever shot anything from the hip. I'm just tired of cowboys and Texans being lumped in with the crazies.


David Brog, lobbyist for Christians United for Israel (if you want to hear something REALLY scary, listen to John Hagee (who, I might add, shares the same enthusiasm for Churchill, as you)rant on (http://www.cufi.org/media/DC2006/1%20-%20Pastor%20John%20Hagee.mp3) at their summit in 7/06).

Christians United for Israel: New Christian Zionism Lobby Hopes to Rival AIPAC (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/15/1326256)

People that bomb buildings are not true adherants to any religion of peace. People that actively oppose peace talks are not Christians, in my opinion.





and my memory fades when trying to recall the time Clinton's Admin outed a CIA operative; destroyed the American school system (death by underfunding); or tried to rewrite Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Perhaps you could, um, "refresh" my memory?

No? Thought not. :p

Sorry, I wasn't near a computer all weekend, so the only thing I could "refresh" was my laundry.

Was Val a covert operative?

Why did Bill refuse to allow people to have vouchers so they could send their children to private schools? If we're supposed to trust the public schools, then why couldn't Chelsea attend one?







I think that more people are energized to participate in government, which is a good thing...but I also concur that the polarization is not. Too much bad blood.
I think that some of the bad blood, at least on this forum, is due to people assuming that those with different opinions are trying to deceive someone. I tend to leave out details because I post during my lunch hour and don't have a computer at home.


The devil is in the details. (Just in case I forgot to mention it.) :p

Mike Sigman
08-21-2006, 12:06 PM
Anyone can get a wrong impression. I have responded to some of the liberal posts in a way that I am surprised you lump me into their camp. I think I am simply trying to point out that the political bickering has gotten way out of hand on aikiweb. I Good. I do too. On the other hand, it *is* an "open discussion" area, so in reality we can't complain about the fact that people may want to discuss politics. My dislike is that partisanship disguised as "good Aikido love of peace", etc. It's about like I get irritated with the "god-fearing Christians" or "Muslims", etc., who essentially carry out power plays under the guise of religion. Take a look.... these "good intentions" accompanied by a lot of obvious hate are exactly as fervent in the Neil Micks as religions are on the other side. And that's fine, except for the fact that these strongly held beliefs and pseudo-beliefs are passed off a "part of legitimate Aikido". It's like the same self-absorbed people I know that talk about "Tao" and all that when in reality they're just role-playing about eastern religion and meta-physics. I.e., it's a fraud. It's phoniness. It dilutes the real art, so it's worth sticking an oar in to show it for what it is.

And besides, if it's an "open forum" and you haven't complained personally about someone else "bickering", isn't there a legitimate question (which I already asked) about why you suddenly think this is something that needs to be discussed in relation to me???? I can think of about 10 other people you could have easily made the same question to.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mark Uttech
08-21-2006, 12:29 PM
Yes, I admit I could have thought of 10 other people. And I could be really wrong too! I recall a story, where a 14 yr old boy is in a boat with his aging father and another 14 yr old boy. When the boat capsizes, The first boy , who is an excellent swimmer realizes he can only save one person besides himself. Of course, he saves his father. instead of thanks, he receives an angry: "What the hell did you save the old man for! The other guy was only 14 and had much more to live for!"

Taliesin
08-21-2006, 12:31 PM
Mike

You do get a 'A' for effort.

But in Response to your points

1. Are you saying that Chamberlain was not a Conservative PM. (At least my history allows me to
confirm the party Chamberlain belonged to- and that it was not by any stretch of the
imagination (except perhaps your own) a party of the Left. Still it's impressive the way you can
both claim that I don't know my history and be unable to rebut what I say simultaneously

2. I did look up your 'source' unfortunately it was a simple statement of opinion rather than any
referenced quotation of anything Reith said or actually did. In summary it an 'I think' quotation
rather than evidence. I can't think of any lawyer who would put that forward as evidence of
anything other than an opinion of Reith rather than Reith himself

3. The Hutton Report was an investigation into the Today program's reporting of one incident -
the journalist who reported it was fired. This was despite the fact that the 45
minute 'intelligence' was found to be totally unreliable. Quite why that 'proves' the BBC is
liberal (as if that is a bad thing) i don't know. Your point about the Royal Navy is unclear so I
will have to wait to see how you try to use it.

4. Reports on the media I haven't seen them, but here in the UK there is a mass of Newspaper
media that is definitely right of center - from The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Express and The
Times and The Telegraph. So is your complaint that there is a left bias in the news or that it
isn't Right wing enough for you. (I very much doubt that they are the same thing) I also doubt
that the Center for Media & Democracy (an American Organisation) would agree with you.

Still you carry on digging Mike, but try and come up with something beyond pure criticism of people who don't agree with you. ( Like for example: "Are you serious? You understand the pressure that Chamberlain was under and are fibbing or you really don't know your history".)

TTFN

Brad Pruitt
08-21-2006, 12:51 PM
Mike,
You sure don't come across very aiki at all except maybe in your false idealism. I believe you are the phoney as you continue to demonstrate every time you post.

Mike Sigman
08-21-2006, 01:00 PM
Mike

You do get a 'A' for effort.

But in Response to your points

1. Are you saying that Chamberlain was not a Conservative PM. No, I'm not. But you're obviously trying to be disingenous or you're unaware of the political pressures from the huge liberal "peace or appeasement" majority in the nation at the time. 2. I did look up your 'source' unfortunately it was a simple statement of opinion rather than any
referenced quotation of anything Reith said or actually did. In summary it an 'I think' quotation
rather than evidence. I can't think of any lawyer who would put that forward as evidence of
anything other than an opinion of Reith rather than Reith himself Try looking up Reith's rather voluminous diaries that are published. I simply don't want to play the game of "source" after a point has been made. Reith was actually did NOT have unusual views, if that's what you're incensed about, about Hitler being a good guy and Churchill being a bad guy. Among the British population, that was not uncommon at all at that time and that was one of the points I was making. Don't get the idea that Reith being "pro Hitler" was some sort of outrage or was unusual. It was common. Besides, he was pretty much a well-known jerk. If he hated Churchill, it's logical that he couched it in agreement with the liberal position that Hitler was to be admired and appeased:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913525,00.html 3. The Hutton Report was an investigation into the Today program's reporting of one incident -
the journalist who reported it was fired. This was despite the fact that the 45
minute 'intelligence' was found to be totally unreliable. Quite why that 'proves' the BBC is
liberal (as if that is a bad thing) i don't know. Your point about the Royal Navy is unclear so I
will have to wait to see how you try to use it. Look... the Hutton report came out with the finding that the BBC was biased and a general house-cleaning was called for. I win, you lose. The Royal Navy getting rid of the BBC because of its liberal bias is documented. I win, you lose. You're one of these guys that loses the argument and then tries to "source" it and "fine point" it so you can claim a draw. The BBC is notoriously liberal; you don't think so because you think the same way. Why not just accept that as the probable thing and move on? I'm certainly not going to quibble with you all day about whether or not the BBC is biased. It is. Every retraction and error they've admitted to has been on the liberal side; never on the conservative side. Don't dissemble... it's unbecoming.

Mike Sigman

Ron Tisdale
08-21-2006, 01:05 PM
Hmm...I should stay out of this...I should stay out of this...

Ok, guess what Brad? *If* we accept that Mike's level is the low one...you just sunk to it with a personal attack.

What does that say about your practice?

Should it say anything about your practice?

Does it mean anything at all?

In the words of Tesshu..."not one thing"...

Best,
Ron (Hi Mark...we were all waiting for the board to come back up, and look how we're wasting it! :) Ah well, somethings never change...)

Neil Mick
08-21-2006, 01:12 PM
Just trying to be part of the clique. ;)

Then we'd better start playing the game of "Feed Mikey's Ego," if we're trying to fit in. On 2nd thought, let's not. Too much of that goin' around. :freaky:

The devil is in the details.

OK, ya covered THAT base. ;)

signing statements (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html)

What a load of crap!! If the bill shouldn't be a law, then veto it!! What the heck is the point of someone saying that they don't like something, and signing it into law anyway?!

Yep, the misuse of signing statements, an attempt to expand the power of the Executive into unlimited bounds, with a lack of oversight. Presenting a signing statement leaves an "out" for Bush. He can circumvent the messiness of a veto override, by signing a bill the he dislikes and enforce it any way he chooses.

While not the first President to use signing statements, Bush has used these Constitutional end-run's more that all the other Presidents...combined.

None of the cowboys that I know have ever shot anything from the hip. I'm just tired of cowboys and Texans being lumped in with the crazies.

I wouldn't want a cab-driver, an actor, a barber, or a salesman to be President, either.

For that matter: I wouldn't want a President to be herding cattle, either (or, chopping up cedar, on a sound-stage made to look like a home). :freaky:

People that bomb buildings are not true adherants to any religion of peace. People that actively oppose peace talks are not Christians, in my opinion.

Well, we're in agreement, there. These folks are scary.

Sorry, I wasn't near a computer all weekend, so the only thing I could "refresh" was my laundry.

Was Val a covert operative?

Yeah, she was. And, her cover was blown. By a member of W's Admin. Who, I recall, stated that anyone in his Staff would get the pink slip, if they (or rather, Carl ) were found to be involved.

Funny, but I hear of no pink slip's being ordered for the White Mansion's stockroom.

Why did Bill refuse to allow people to have vouchers so they could send their children to private schools? If we're supposed to trust the public schools, then why couldn't Chelsea attend one?

I really couldn't care less, what school a Patrician's daughter attends.

Just as, I really think that it matters not one bit, which intern our ex-Prez was diddling.

What REALLY matters is what laws he votes for.

And vouchers are a joke: a bad laugh-riot at the expense of the poor. Bush lies when he says that these half-funded jokes are anything but a payback for rich families. The vouchers given out are insufficient to fund a full 4 years at a trendy pvt HS. So, the parents of the rich kids already going there get some nice kickbacks...while the public schools get sliced up by privatization.

Guess here Johnny from the poor neighborhoods ends up?

I think that some of the bad blood, at least on this forum, is due to people assuming that those with different opinions are trying to deceive someone.

True enough.

I tend to leave out details because I post during my lunch hour and don't have a computer at home.

Probably a healthy thing to do. Wish I had the same self-control.

The devil is in the details. (Just in case I forgot to mention it.) :p

Ooh, you wag! :p Good post!

Mike Sigman
08-21-2006, 01:17 PM
Hi Mark...we were all waiting for the board to come back up, and look how we're wasting it! :) Ah well, somethings never change...Just as a side note, Ron. In the old days on the Neijia list I pretty much would challenge oddball contentions for the list so that people couldn't slip in with simple assertions, "my teacher is so-and-so the greatest", "Qi is really the liquid at the center of the Moon", or whatever. A lot of contention and "hate" starts when you publicly challenge people to factually support their claims, particularly if they're used to dealing in an environment where anyone can claim anything without challenge. However, it causes a lot of "bickering".

We had a lot of people who "didn't want to be on the Neijia list because of all the bickering". But over time, I noticed something that I've never forgotten. Many times the "bickering" is about the same thing as a fly-fisherman throwing out his cast... most of them are unproductive.... then, bam, suddenly a strike. And you would have never had that strike if you hadn't patiently cast, reeled in, etc. If you want to catch fish, you have to cast. So a certain amount of bickering (with a goal in mind) often can bring up new thoughts, facts, pursuable anecdotes, etc.

In the case of an "open forum" discussion, of course, it's all a waste of time ultimately. However, in the past when I've dropped into the "Open Discussion" forum, it looks more like a one-sided "Hate Bush" area... no real healthy debate. It so camply follows the predictable "Aikido is for whacked out liberals" (yes, a common thought on RMA and other places, as you well know), that it's a little embarrassing. Heck, if "Open Discussion" was a pro-Bush, pro-war area, I'd certainly be in here discussing the points from the other side and telling everyone that Kerry has his good points as well as his bad. ;)

Mike

Mike Sigman
08-21-2006, 01:28 PM
Then we'd better start playing the game of "Feed Mikey's Ego," if we're trying to fit in. On 2nd thought, let's not. Too much of that goin' around. :freaky: Ah.... the "Spirit of Aikido", as Neil sees it. This is what I meant about the phoney crowd of people in Aikido, Taiji, in Haight-Ashbury, etc., who talk "peace and love" but who are truly self-absorbed and vicious. And that was the point all along. Thanks, Neil.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
08-21-2006, 01:35 PM
There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.

This country of ours is at war and we must give those whose responsibility it is to protect the United States the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war. The judges decision, I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree that's why I instructed the justice department to appeal immediately and I believe our appeals will be upheld.

Ratio of time the major "Liberal" media networks spent this week, focusing on a 10 yr-old murder of a child beauty-queen, in relation to the recent judicial ruling of the Bush admin's warrantless spying program:

ABC 2:1

CBS 7:1

NBC 15:1

Ron Tisdale
08-21-2006, 01:55 PM
Hmmm, I admit, not good odds, Neil.

Hey Mike, you are absolutely correct. If you want to make an omlet...

Best,
Ron

Mike Sigman
08-21-2006, 04:11 PM
Ratio of time the major "Liberal" media networks spent this week, focusing on a 10 yr-old murder of a child beauty-queen, in relation to the recent judicial ruling of the Bush admin's warrantless spying program:Actually, in this case I completely agree with the irritation about the sickening over-coverage of the JonBenet Ramsey "confession". I also would have preferred that the be much more coverage of the decision by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, a Jimmy Carter appointee who has been accused of extreme (and potentially illegal) partisanship in a previous case.

The ACLU and others who brought the suit carefully "shopped", looking for a judge who was sympathetic to their views. This "shopping" by itself should be enough to tell us that our legal system has a gaping hole in it that "activist" judges exploit and which other activists try to use to their advantage.

The problem with the decision is that while Ms. Diggs got in her liberal digs about the "imperial presidency", her legal reasoning was so flawed that even liberal law scholars are highly embarrassed. The only newspaper to crow about the decision was the NY Times, but by the second day, even they were reduced to saying it would no doubt be overturned because it cannot be legally sustained. Not to mention, other courts have *all* ruled exactly the opposite of this partisan maverick.

So yes, while Neil applauds a little dishonest partisanship in our court systems and feels bad about the lack of coverage, I feel bad about the lack of coverage, too..... but for somewhat more ethical reasons. Why is it that liberals think that the law is their plaything, I wonder? But then again, why is it that some conservatives think the law is immutable? Still, we have to go with the laws we have or just simply chuck them all, rather than just picking and choosing the ones we're going to enforce.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Brad Pruitt
08-21-2006, 09:58 PM
Hmm...I should stay out of this...I should stay out of this...

Ok, guess what Brad? *If* we accept that Mike's level is the low one...you just sunk to it with a personal attack.

What does that say about your practice?

Should it say anything about your practice?

Does it mean anything at all?

In the words of Tesshu..."not one thing"...

Best,
Ron (Hi Mark...we were all waiting for the board to come back up, and look how we're wasting it! :) Ah well, somethings never change...)

Ron,

I know, I know I sunk to his level but sometimes I can't help myself. I am in fact only human. When someone continues to be an ass it's really hard to stop and not say anything. It does say something about my practice and that is I am still beginning and have a long way to go. That's not an excuse only the fact. I am working on it though, thanks for your post.

Brad

Mark Uttech
08-21-2006, 10:08 PM
Brad, you replied in this thread because you believed in your practice , and that is the only true thing where you can't go wrong. In gassho

Mark

Mike Sigman
08-21-2006, 11:31 PM
Ron,

I know, I know I sunk to his level but sometimes I can't help myself. I am in fact only human. When someone continues to be an ass it's really hard to stop and not say anything. It was my fault... I made him do it! ;) This is great stuff.

Taliesin
08-22-2006, 04:03 AM
Mike

Try and get real - move to an atmosphere with more oxygen. - Fact Chamberlain was a conservative PM (Not left) Fact the pressure for appeasement was from all sides not just 'the left'. Which was YOUR original point (Being generous I accept you didn't remember that)

So what's that phrase of yours I win you lose.

Reith - basic principle "he who asserts must prove" - you haven't and the onus is on you.

What's that phrase of yours, oh yeah,... I win you lose.

BBC - the Royal Navy 'getting rid of the BBC' - what's your point - that the Royal Navy stopped advertising on the BBC? - The BBC doesn't transmit advertisements (except for their own programmes and publications). - Again you have asserted without proving..What's that phrase again... I win you lose.

The Hutton Report - one (accurate) report leads to one journalist beign fired.

You're one of these guys that loses the argument and then tries to "source" it and "fine point.

Mike , given the quality, or more accurately, lack of quality of your arguments, which you haven't supported by anything other than a single hearsay report, what makes you think you are qualified to judge who won a point.

I'm one of those guys who, shame on me, does not accept the word of Mike Sigman as gospel.

Looking forward to your next attempt.

statisticool
08-22-2006, 06:47 AM
Watch out! He'll zap ya with his mighty peng jin vector.


Justin

Mike Sigman
08-22-2006, 08:34 AM
Mike

Try and get real - move to an atmosphere with more oxygen. - Fact Chamberlain was a conservative PM (Not left) Fact the pressure for appeasement was from all sides not just 'the left'. Which was YOUR original point (Being generous I accept you didn't remember that) WTF? Now you're saying that regardless of what party Chamberlain was in, he was under great pressure from the British public to appease...... That's what I said at first, David! In other words, your worries about his party were specious, just as I've said 2 or 3 times and now you're repeating it back to me. Reith - basic principle "he who asserts must prove" - you haven't and the onus is on you. No, I told you up front that I'm not going to get dragged into a "source and cite" on every statement I've made. It's a silly game that young lads in college like to do in order to lead away from the point. The point, which has been more than adequately made, is that the BBC has a leftist bias. I'm comfortable with letting that stand on the merits or all the other pointers. If you disagree, just disagree.... don't play your child's game of trying to force a "source" or "cite" out of every sentence. BBC - the Royal Navy 'getting rid of the BBC' - what's your point - that the Royal Navy stopped advertising on the BBC? - The BBC doesn't transmit advertisements (except for their own programmes and publications). - Again you have asserted without proving..What's that phrase again... I win you lose. Do some research. The Navy quit playing the BBC on board ships because of the bias. Strange you didn't know that... perhaps the BBC didn't bother to report it????????
http://newsmine.org/archive/war-on-terror/iraq/2003-invasion/media/bbc-axed-pro-iraqi-bias.txt
The Hutton Report - one (accurate) report leads to one journalist beign fired. I assume that's a deliberate lie. More than firing one journalist happened. Do some research, if you don't know. Mike , given the quality, or more accurately, lack of quality of your arguments, which you haven't supported by anything other than a single hearsay report, what makes you think you are qualified to judge who won a point. See above. You're now in my books permanently as not worth the time.

Mike Sigman

Taliesin
08-22-2006, 11:52 AM
Mike

Try this slowly

You asserted that appeasement was a matter pushed by the Left prior to WW11. (Or at least the left should apologize for it)

Now take a deep breath

Step two - the British Prime Minister was a Conservative and supporter of appeasement prior to WW2

Are you with me so far

So your argument that appeasement was pushed by the left (not the British public)... get ready for this bit ... was WRONG.

Now if you feel up to it let's continue

You make assertion and claim that you re "not going to get dragged into a "source and cite" on every statement I've (you've) made."

The trouble with that is that it necessarily follows that we should accept your unsupported opinion as incontrovertible fact. Not an argument that I find particularly convincing (I believe X therefore you should too).

The Argument about the Royal Navy. Here I have to admire your hypocrisy. I ask you to clarify your point and you suggest that I "Do some research". That would be a fair suggestion if you yourself had not said "I'm not going to get dragged into a "source and cite" on every statement I've made".

Still I did read your source - FYI - The Ark Royal is not actually the entire Royal Navy. the Report also pointed out"

"A BBC correspondent has been on board but the crew say they have no gripe with his reports".

Still I can now understand why you are so reluctant to back up your arguments.

But you are right that it was not reported on the BBC to my recollection - but then I don't recall it being reported in the Times either.

The Hutton Report - another statement that I should " Do some research".

Mike if you want anyone to take you seriously, you'll have to do better then to tell everyone us to demonstrate the validity of your arguments.

as to your comment that I'm not worth the time -

I cannot begin to express the truly deep heartfelt anguish I feel as having been so unreasonable as to ask you to back up your own points. You cannot begin to mesure my regret for failing to accept you as the one true prophet of truth.

Still in the words of Windsor Davies "Oh Dear, What a pity, never mind"

Mike Sigman
08-22-2006, 12:13 PM
The Argument about the Royal Navy. Here I have to admire your hypocrisy. I ask you to clarify your point and you suggest that I "Do some research". That would be a fair suggestion if you yourself had not said "I'm not going to get dragged into a "source and cite" on every statement I've made".

Still I did read your source - FYI - The Ark Royal is not actually the entire Royal Navy. the Report also pointed out"

"A BBC correspondent has been on board but the crew say they have no gripe with his reports".

Still I can now understand why you are so reluctant to back up your arguments.Actually, David, you're now in my book as simply dishonest and of no further use for discussion. I'm not even sure of your sanity.... other people than you looked at that source (there are others, if you want to do the Googling):

'Angry' Ark Royal crew switch off BBC

The BBC has been axed from the nation's flagship naval vessel following claims of pro-Iraqi bias.

The Navy says it has switched off News 24 aboard HMS Ark Royal after complaints by the crew.

It is one of a handful of task force ships which receives live TV direct from Britain.

Rolling news plus two entertainment channels are beamed into the warship.

A BBC correspondent has been on board but the crew say they have no gripe with his reports.

However they were annoyed by the comments of presenters and commentators reporting on the carrier's Sea King tragedy a fortnight ago.

The BBC suggested poor levels of maintenance played a hand in the deaths of seven fliers.

Sailors also believe the news organisation places more faith in Iraqi reports than information coming from British or Allied sources.

One senior rating said: "The BBC always takes the Iraqis' side. It reports what they say as gospel but when it comes to us it questions and doubts everything the British and Americans are reporting. A lot of people on board are very unhappy."

Ark has replaced the BBC with rival broadcaster Sky News.

In the full quote, you'll notice that the bias of the BBC in general was the question, not the one journalist on board. You just deliberately skewed the report's substance and omitted the part you didn't like. That's dishonesty. And the "Ark Royal" is the Royal Navy flagship... other ships followed suit. And the Captain of the "Ark Royal" didn't drop the BBC at the behest of just the one sailor mentioned in the interview, I think we all understand.

The rest of your responses are equally duplicitous.

Goodbye.

Mike Sigman

Hogan
08-22-2006, 03:02 PM
...David, .... I'm not even sure of your sanity.... ...

Didn't David say he was a LAW student? That would explain it....

Neil Mick
08-22-2006, 04:34 PM
I cannot begin to express the truly deep heartfelt anguish I feel as having been so unreasonable as to ask you to back up your own points. You cannot begin to mesure my regret for failing to accept you as the one true prophet of truth.

:sorry: *Passes David a hanky* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhAjrIAFiJ0) :sorry:
;) :D :D ;)

Taliesin
08-23-2006, 04:08 AM
John

Actually - I'm a qualified lawyer - that's why I like the idea of arguments backed by logic and solid evidence. - Terrible isn't it. - A guy who makes decisions on the basis of evidence and logic must be insane (or is it just that anyone who expects anyone on the political right to back up their points with evidence and logic must be insane - in which case that's probably a fair point)

Mike

Just because your evidence doesn't say what you want it to doesn't make me dishonest - it might make you stupid though.

I'll go slowly - You cannot (I'll rephrase) A reasonable person cannot argue there is complete left wing bias in the BBC in an article where the crew have no complaints about the BBC Journalist on board.

You are also disingenuous to put forward the actions, motivations and request of a single ship as being the same as a Decision of the Royal Navy and the reasons for it.

I also like the point made that

"Sailors also believe the news organization places more faith in Iraqi reports than information coming from British or Allied sources." - So the BBC doesn't trust the guy's caught red-handed lying through their teeth about WMD and 45 minute deployment capacity.

Shocking. It's as if they treat information from proven liars with more suspicion. I still can't see how that comes close to demonstrating a left wing bias.

However since you're struggling so hard I will concede that the BBC is to the left of Fox News - assuming that is your idea of left wing.

Mike Sigman
08-23-2006, 09:38 AM
Just because your evidence doesn't say what you want it to doesn't make me dishonest - it might make you stupid though.

I'll go slowly - You cannot (I'll rephrase) A reasonable person cannot argue there is complete left wing bias in the BBC in an article where the crew have no complaints about the BBC Journalist on board. You're inherently dishonest, David. No "reasonable person" within the context of this debate argued "there is complete left wing bias in the BBC" (sic). So you have set up your own strawman and demolished it. Then the grudging admission that the BBC tilts Left. That's all I said to start with, before you began this useless tangent.

Mike Sigman

Mark Freeman
08-23-2006, 10:05 AM
You're inherently dishonest, David. No "reasonable person" within the context of this debate argued "there is complete left wing bias in the BBC" (sic). So you have set up your own strawman and demolished it. Then the grudging admission that the BBC tilts Left. That's all I said to start with, before you began this useless tangent.

Mike Sigman


One of the interesting points in the history of World War II was Churchill's comment about how absurdly easy it would have been to stop the empowerment of Nazi Germany if the people had only acted in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, most of Europe was doing everything it could to avoid war at any cost and appeasement was the only strategy that anyone would stand for. Hitler actually became the lauded hero of many on the Left. After the war, none of the Left stepped forward to indicate that they had been grievously wrong, so wrong that more than 20 million people died; including the Jews, who both France and England were aware were being killed in the concentration camps. The BBC was then, as now, a platform for the Left.

Who wrote the above?? No reasonable person?

Hogan
08-23-2006, 10:34 AM
John

Actually - I'm a qualified lawyer - ....

You previously stated:
As someone who actually studies Law at college -

Studies to be one or is one?

Taliesin
08-23-2006, 11:38 AM
Sorry typo

Should be studied Law not studies

Yes I am a lawyer and currently practice Immigration & Asylum (Refugee) Law in the UK

Hogan
08-23-2006, 12:18 PM
Sorry typo

Should be studied Law not studies

Yes I am a lawyer and currently practice Immigration & Asylum (Refugee) Law in the UK

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. I have always been fascinated by law system in the UK. Very different (as far as process) from the US. I will be in the UK in a coupla' mos. and will probably take a 'legal walking tour' of London - any suggestions???

Neil Mick
08-23-2006, 03:52 PM
Gotta hand it to Jim Hightower: he sure tells it like it is.

Here's a lot of concise factoids about what "Bush is." You can get a cool downloadable poster of these facts, here. (http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/833)

The War President


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
-George W., August 2004


Number of Americans killed in Bush's Iraq war as of August 2006: 2577

What Bush press flack Tony Snow said the day the total number of American dead reached 2,500: "It's a number"

Number of Americans killed since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003: 2,438

Number of Americans wounded (a vague term that includes such horrors as brain damage, limb blasted off, eyes blown out, psyche shattered, etc.) in Bush's war:
Official count: 18,777
Independent count: up to 48,000


Estimated number of Iraqi civilians (men, women, and children) killed in Bush's war since Saddam Hussein was ousted: 38,960

For Iraqis, the bloodiest month of the war so far: June 2006 (more than 100 civilians killed per day)

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmit's advice to Iraqis who see TV reports of innocent civilians being killed by occupying troops: "Change the channel."

Percent of Iraqis who want American troops to leave: 82

Stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq since Bush committed Americans to war in 2003 on the basis that Saddam had and was about to use WMDs: 0

Number of nations in the world: 192

Number that joined Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" (COW) to invade Iraq: 48
(The list includes such military powers as Angola, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Latvia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Romania, Solomon Islands, and Uganda.)

Number of COW nations that actually sent any troops to Iraq: 39
(Of these, 32 sent fewer than 1,000 troops. Many sent no fighting units, deploying only engineers, trainers, humanitarian units, and other noncombat personnel.)


Number of the 39 COW nations contributing troops that have since withdrawn them: 17
(An additional 7 have announced plans to withdraw all or part of their contingents this year.)

Number of COW troops in Iraq: 150,000

Number of these that are U.S. troops: 139,000

Number of White House officials and cabinet members who have any of their immediate family in Bush's war: 0

Follow the Money


We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
-"Howling Paul" Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, in testimony to Congress, March 2003


The official White House claim before the invasion of what the war and occupation would cost U.S. taxpayers: $50 billion

As of July 2006, the total amount appropriated by Congress for Bush's ongoing war and occupation: $295,634,921,248

Current Pentagon spending per month in Iraq: $8 billion (or $185,185.19 per minute)

Assuming all troops return home by 2010, the projected "real costs" for the war: More than $1 trillion
(includes veterans' pay and medical costs, interest on the billions Bush has borrowed to pay for his war, etc.)

Bonus Stat!


Annual salary of Stuart Baker, hired by the Bushites to be the White House "Director for Lessons Learned": $106,641

Number of lessons that Bush appears to have learned: 0

The Imperial Presidency


"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
George W., August, 2002.




Signing Statements

When signing a particular congressional act into law, a few presidents have occasionally issued a "signing statement" to clarify their understanding of what Congress intended. These have not had the force of law and have been used discreetly in the past.

Very quietly, however, Bush has radically increased both the number and reach of these statements, essentially asserting that the president can arbitrarily decide which laws he will obey.


Number of signing statements issued by Bush as of July 2006: more than 800
(This is more than the combined total of all 42 previous presidents.)
A few examples of congressionally passed laws he has effectively annulled through these extralegal signing statements:


a ban against torture of prisoners by the U.S. military

a requirement that the FBI periodically report to Congress on how it is using the Patriot Act to search our homes and secretly seize people's private papers

a ban against storage in military databases of intelligence about Americans that was obtained illegally

a directive for the executive branch to transmit scientific information to Congress "uncensored and without delay" when requested


Provision of the Constitution clearly stating that Congress alone has the power "to make all laws": Article 1, Section 8

Provision of the Constitution clearly stating that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed": Article 2, Section 3

Name of the young lawyer in the Reagan administration who wrote a 1986 strategy memo on how to pervert the use of signing statements in order to concentrate more power in the executive branch, as Bush is now doing: Samuel Alito, named to the U.S. Supreme Court by Bush this year

National Security Letters

These are secret executive writs that the infamous 2001 Patriot Act authorizes the FBI to issue to public libraries, internet firms, banks, and others. Upon receiving an NSL, the institution or firm is required to turn over any private records it holds on you, me, or whomever the agents have chosen to search.

Who authorizes the FBI to issue these secret writs? The FBI itself.


Surely the agents have to get a search warrant, a grand jury subpoena, or a court's approval? No


But to issue an NSL, an agent must show probable cause that the person being searched has committed some crime, right? No

Well, don't officials have to inform citizens that their records are being seized so they can defend themselves or protest? No

Number of NSLs issued by various FBI offices last year alone: 9,254

NSA Eavesdropping

In 2001, Bush issued a secret order for the National Security Agency to begin vacuuming up massive numbers of telephone and internet exchanges by U.S. citizens, illegally seizing this material without any judicial approval or informing Congress, as required by law.


Number of Americans who have had their phone and internet communications taken by NSA: Just about everyone!
(NSA is tapping into the entire database of long-distance calls and internet messages run through AT&T and probably other companies as well.)

In May of this year, the Justice Department abruptly halted an internal investigation that was trying to uncover the name of the top officials who had authorized NSA's warrantless, unconstitutional program. Who killed this probe, which was requested by Congress? George W himself! (He directed NSA simply to refuse security clearances for the department's legal investigators.)

What happened to NSA Director Michael Hayden, who was the key architect of Bush's illegal eavesdropping program and the one who would've formally denied clearances to Justice Department investigators? In May, Bush promoted him to head the CIA.

This past May, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales warned that journalists who report on NSA's spy program could be prosecuted under the antiquated Espionage Act of 1917.


Times in U.S. history this act has been used to go after the press: 0

Margin by which the U.S. House in 1917 voted down an amendment to make the Espionage Act apply to journalists: 184-144

Interesting Fact

The New York Times reported this June that Bush was running another spy program. This one was snooping through international banking records, including millions of bank transactions done by innocent Americans. George reacted angrily to the exposure, branding the Times report "disgraceful" and declaring that revelation of his spy program "does great harm to the United States." The White House and its right-wing acolytes promptly launched a "Hate-the-Times" political campaign.

Name the guy who was the first to reveal that such a bank-spying program was in the works: George W. Bush! At a September 2001 press conference, he announced that he'd just signed an executive order to monitor all international bank transactions.

Watch Lists

From the Bushites' ill-fated Total Information Awareness program (meant to monitor all of our computerized transactions) to the robust efforts by Rumsfeld's Pentagon to barge into the domestic surveillance game, America under Bush has fast become "The Watched Society."


Number of data-mining programs being run secretly on us by the federal government: Nearly 200 separate programs at 52 agencies

Number of "local activity reports" submitted to the Pentagon in 2004 under the "Threat and Local Observation Notice" program (TALON), which directed military officers throughout our country to keep an eye on suspicious activities by civilians: More than 5,000
(They included such "threats" as peace demonstrators and 10 activists protesting outside Halliburton's headquarters.)

Number of official "watch lists" maintained by the feds: More than a dozen run by 9 different agencies

Number of Americans on the Transportation Security Administration's "No- Fly" list: That's a secret.
(TSA concedes that it's in the tens of thousands. In 2005 alone, some 30,000 people called TSA to complain that their names were mistakenly on the list.)

Most famous citizen who is on the No-Fly list and has been repeatedly pulled aside by TSA for additional screenings at airports: Sen. Ted Kennedy


How can you get your name removed from TSA list? That's a secret.

Name That Guy!

In 1966, a young Republican congressman stood against his party's elders to cosponsor the original Freedom of Information Act, valiantly declaring that public records "are public property." He said that FOIA "will make it considerably more difficult for secrecy-minded bureaucrats to decide arbitrarily that the people should be denied access to information on the conduct of government."

Who was that virtuous lawmaker? Donald Rumsfeld!

Only eight years later, Gerald Ford's chief of staff strongly urged him to veto the continuation of FOIA. Who was that dastardly staffer? Donald Rumsfeld!

Who is now one of the chief "secrecy-minded bureaucrats" who routinely violates OIA's principles? Right, him again!

Regime of Secrecy


"Democracies die behind closed doors."
-- Appeals court judge Damon Keith, ruling in a 2002 case that the Bushites cannot hold deportation hearings in secret


Increase in the number of government documents marked "secret" between 2001 and 2004: 81 percent


Number of government documents stamped "secret" in 2001: 8.6 million

Number of government documents stamped "secret" in 2004: 15.6 million (a new record)

Cost to taxpayers of classifying and securing documents in 2004: $7.2 billion ($460 per document)

Number of previously declassified documents that the CIA tried to reclassify as "secret" under a 2001 secret agreement with the National Archives, even though many had already been published and some date back to the Korean War: 25,315


Number of different "official designations" the government now has to classify nonsecret information so it still is kept out of the public's reach: Between 50 and 60
(They include such stamps as CBU: Controlled But Unclassified, SBU: Sensitive But Unclassified, and LOU: Limited Official Use Only.)

The only vice-president in history who has claimed that he, like the president, has the inherent authority to mark "secret" on any document he chooses: "Buckshot" Cheney

Number of documents Cheney has classified: That's a secret.
(He claims he does not have to report this to anyone -- not even the president.)

Of the 7,045 advisory committee meetings held by the Bushites in 2004, percentage that were completely closed to the public, contrary to the clear intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act: 64 percent (a new record)

Number of times from 1953 to1975 (the peak of the Cold War) that presidents invoked the "state secrets" privilege, which grants them unilateral power in extraordinary instances literally to shut down court cases on the grounds they could reveal secrets that the president doesn't want disclosed: 4

Number of times the same privilege was invoked between 2001 and 2006: At least 24

Under Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno issued an official memo instructing agencies to release as much information as possible to the public. In October 2001, AG John Ashcroft issued a memo canceling Reno's approach, expressly instructing agencies to look for reasons to deny the public access to information and pledging to support the denials if the agencies were sued.

2005 FOIA requests still awaiting a response at year's end: 31 percent
(a one-third increase over the 2004 backlog)

Median waiting time to get an answer on FOIA request from Bush's justice department: 863 days

Halliburton


"Halliburton is a unique kind of company."
-- Dick Cheney, September 2003


Total value of contracts given to Halliburton for work in the Bush-Cheney "War on Terror" since 2001: More than $15 billion

Amount that Halliburton pays to the Third World laborers it imports into Iraq to do the work in its dining facilities, laundries, etc.: $6 per 12-hour day (50 cents an hour)

Amount that Halliburton bills us taxpayers for each of these workers: $50 a day

Amount that Halliburton bills U.S. taxpayers for:
A case of sodas: $45

Washing a bag of laundry: $100
Halliburton's campaign contributions in Bush-Cheney election years:
In 2000: $285,252 (96 percent to Republicans)
In 2004: $145,500 (89 percent to Republicans)
Plus $365,065 from members of its board of directors (99 percent to Republicans)
Increase in Halliburton's profits since Bush-Cheney took office in 2000: 379 percent

Halliburton's 2005 profit: $1.1 billion
(highest in the corporation's 86-year history


"Since leaving Halliburton to become George Bush's vice-president, I've severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind."
Former CEO Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, September 2003


Annual payments that Cheney has received from Halliburton since he's been vice-president:
2001: $205,298
2002: $162,392
2003: $178,437
2004: $194,852
2005: $211,465
Cash bonus paid to Cheney by Halliburton just before he took office: $1.4 million


Retirement package he was given in 2000 after only 5 years as CEO: $20 million
Number of times in the past two years that Republicans have killed Sen. Byron Dorgan's amendment to set up a Truman-style committee on war profiteering to investigate Halliburton: 3
Naughty word Cheney used during a Senate photo session in 2004 to assail Sen. Patrick Leahy, who had criticized Cheney's ongoing ties to Halliburton: "Go #@! percent yourself.

statisticool
08-23-2006, 05:22 PM
No, I told you up front that I'm not going to get dragged into a "source and cite" on every statement I've made. It's a silly game that young lads in college like to do in order to lead away from the point.


Better to just stick with stories, gossip, and phantom books than to cite any hard facts that others can check on.


Justin

Rod McLaughlin
08-23-2006, 07:53 PM
Hello all,

I don't post often but I thought I would throw my two bits in.

I am not a George Bush Fan nor am I a hater. Bush has made huge mistakes but I do not forget that he did not start this war.

I want peace in the middle east and the rest of the world, but I do not believe we can just all shake hands and be friends. No matter how nice we are, Terrorist will still want us dead. I will not pretend I am smarter than, Clinton, Bush, Blair, Martin or any other world leader who has not been able to solve this problem. Do we attack them or do we wait to be attacked and then respond?
What exactly is a measured response?
Do we hit them hard hoping for deterrence or sympathize and negotiate hoping to change there outlook on the west?

Israel has tried both approaches but still they are attacked.

I personally do not believe that we can negotiate with terrorist. We must remember that the present day terrorists are not the freedom fighters of the 70's and 80's. You can not negotiate for peace or make concessions because all they want is your death!

Back to Mr. Bush, He may not be popular on this site but he was re-elected by the American people, so someone must like him.

Please also note that he is a popular target, but is he the worst world leader right now. The Sudanese government sits by and watches there woman be raped by rebels. 200 a month, not to mention the beatings and killings. Where is there marches and yellow ribbons. Similar situation in the Congo, Rwanda and many other countries where there leaders are more concerned with there own wealth. We in the first world keep spending our energies on Bush and Iraq and ignore real dictators and real suffering in other places. The situation in Iraq is terrible and was created by Bush's arrogance but in no way is it the worst situation going on in the world right now. it is just the most reported and it is a easy cause.

Just my thoughts

Mike Sigman
08-23-2006, 08:56 PM
Better to just stick with stories, gossip, and phantom books than to cite any hard facts that others can check on.Hmmmm.... Justin, what "hard facts" have you presented in your promotion of the idea that Cheng Man Ching was a "disciple" of Yang Cheng Fu? None. You've presented some limited gossip.... unless you think that because something is in a book it is an unimpeachable source. Remember that anyone can write a book... and they often do. You have a website promoting the idea that Cheng Man Ching was a disciple of Yang Cheng Fu.... where are the Bai Shr scrolls and the student rolls????????????

Where is your knowledge of even basic Taiji????? So far, you have shown none. If you want to play, you need to ante up.

Mike Sigman

Mike Hamer
08-23-2006, 11:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFCxpuHWMy0

nuff said

dps
08-23-2006, 11:17 PM
If you want to play, you need to ante up. Ante up Mike, how long did you practice Aikido, what rank did you attain, and who was your Sensei?

Neil Mick
08-24-2006, 12:33 AM
Do we attack them or do we wait to be attacked and then respond?

How about asking why they are attacking, in the first place?

Israel has tried both approaches but still they are attacked.

We can agree to disagree, here.

I personally do not believe that we can negotiate with terrorist.

Israel would appear to disagree. They practically formalized the policy.

You can not negotiate for peace or make concessions because all they want is your death!

Ah, Rod: the world is far more complex, than that.

Back to Mr. Bush, He may not be popular on this site but he was re-elected by the American people, so someone must like him.

Either that, or someone else ran a half-hearted campaign, against him.

Please also note that he is a popular target, but is he the worst world leader right now.

Depends upon how you define "worst."

The Sudanese government sits by and watches there woman be raped by rebels. 200 a month, not to mention the beatings and killings. Where is there marches and yellow ribbons. Similar situation in the Congo, Rwanda and many other countries where there leaders are more concerned with there own wealth. We in the first world keep spending our energies on Bush and Iraq and ignore real dictators and real suffering in other places. The situation in Iraq is terrible and was created by Bush's arrogance but in no way is it the worst situation going on in the world right now. it is just the most reported and it is a easy cause.

And, come on, Rod! Do we really want to measure ourselves against Congo, Rwanda, et al? Aren't we supposed to be the "shining beacon on the hill?"

Some beacon! :yuck: We're supposed to be the country that everyone looks up to: not the superpower that creates discord and a string of secret gulags in E. Europe, so that we can shrug and say, "Well, at least we're better than Rwanda!" :disgust:

Taliesin
08-24-2006, 06:37 AM
Mike

It seems I'm quite right

No "reasonable person" within the context of this debate argued "there is complete left wing bias in the BBC" (sic).

Thank you for your confession you are not a reasonable person. But I don't think it was a secret.

My 'admission'

"I will concede that the BBC is to the left of Fox News - assuming that is your idea of left wing."

So every news organization to the Left of Fox News is, in your view, biased to the Left.

That only works if you accept Fox News is in the political center. It's going to be fun seeing you try to defend that point of view. But please look up the meaning of the word 'dishonest' before the next time you use it. (I'll give you a clue - it doesn't actually mean someone who disagrees with Mike Sigman)


PS Under The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) section 82, a confession is defined as;

“any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it, whether made to a person in authority or not, and whether made in words or otherwise”.

Mike Sigman
08-24-2006, 07:48 AM
Mike

It seems I'm quite right

No "reasonable person" within the context of this debate argued "there is complete left wing bias in the BBC" (sic). In fact the "complete left wing bias" you invented was never in the conversation until you yourself introduced it.

"I will concede that the BBC is to the left of Fox News - assuming that is your idea of left wing."

So every news organization to the Left of Fox News is, in your view, biased to the Left.

That only works if you accept Fox News is in the political center. It's going to be fun seeing you try to defend that point of view. But please look up the meaning of the word 'dishonest' before the next time you use it. (I'll give you a clue - it doesn't actually mean someone who disagrees with Mike Sigman) Nobody mentioned Fox News until you did. I don't watch Fox News and I don't use them as a standard, although I have seen poll results saying that they are far more "middle of the road" than ABC news, The New York Times, etc. I get intrigued with this fixation on "Fox News" that the Left has and the insistence by the Left that most media, despite repeated studies, the obviousness of the politically Left demographics in the news media (more than 90% are registered Democrats), are somehow "not biased". Why would anyone take the obviously ridiculous stance that Fox News is somehow the "biased media" when it's the NYTimes and others that have had to retract and apologize constantly for erroneous and skewed stories? Really, all someone says when they bash Fox News is that they're a "follow the herd" liberal.

Now you admit the BBC is biased to the Left. That's all I said in the first place. You're wasting time.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-24-2006, 07:53 AM
Ante up Mike, how long did you practice Aikido, what rank did you attain, and who was your Sensei?Been discussed before on AikiWeb. However, if you want to butt into a conversation about basics for Taiji, don't try to shift it to Aikido. If you still want to butt into a conversation about the basics... let's hear a bit of what you know about ki and kokyu, not how much role-playing you've done for how-many years. The operative words were "butt into a conversation about Taiji basics".

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Taliesin
08-24-2006, 12:15 PM
To David Skaggs

Did you really think you'd get a straight answer from Mike Sigman.


Mike

Being a poor mortal who has to base opinions on evidence and logic unlike yourself perhaps you can explain the difference between your words

"The BBC was then, as now, a platform for the Left."

and explain why it is materially different from saying the BBC has a "complete left wing bias" or that
"the BBC is biased to the Left".


Then we come your comment that

"all someone says when they bash Fox News is that they're a "follow the herd" liberal."

Very interesting since you stated that

"I don't watch Fox News and I don't use them as a standard."

But on the basis of my statement that the BBC is to the left of Fox News, a channel you don't watch, you ask me to "admit the BBC is biased to the Left".

It is also interesting that you also believe that

"all someone says when they bash Fox News is that they're a "follow the herd" liberal."

Particularly since you don't actually watch it.




Well that's me off for a Looong weekend, but Mike you keep your jokes coming, some of them are real pearlers

Mike Sigman
08-24-2006, 12:23 PM
To David Skaggs

Did you really think you'd get a straight answer from Mike Sigman.


Mike

Being a poor mortal who has to base opinions on evidence and logic unlike yourself perhaps you can explain the difference between your words

"The BBC was then, as now, a platform for the Left."

and explain why it is materially different from saying the BBC has a "complete left wing bias" or that
"the BBC is biased to the Left". Because of the word "complete". No one said "complete" except you. Not *everyone* in the BBC gives skewed biased reports, which was why they were careful to except the BBC journalist on board the Ark Royal. There.... I've spent 3 messages telling you the obvious. I think everyone else got the difference between "complete" and the "platform for the Left", David. What do they teach you about logical arguments at UK law schools?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

dps
08-24-2006, 01:16 PM
To David Skaggs

Did you really think you'd get a straight answer from Mike Sigman. No. It is important to establish if someone is willing to give thier credentials or not. It helps to establish if what the person is saying is something to pay attention to or just entertainment.

Rod McLaughlin
08-24-2006, 01:31 PM
Hello Neil, I hope you are doing well.

Are you willing to convert to Islam? Are you willing to give up your current standard of living. If not, what are you willing to do to maintain the life you now enjoy? I believe in negotiations if the other person wants to sit down and talk. My understanding of the Islamic terrorists is that they want to wipe us out. We depend on our governments to protect us but we do not want our governments to get there hands dirty. Do you really believer that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone. If not what do you suggest. UN sanctions (joke)

Yes the world is more complex than a two paragraph rant. Every nation with Veto Power has an agenda with regards to the Middle East. Who is selling arms to who, who has secret oil contracts and so on. When countries vote on UN resolutions they are voting on what is best for there country not what is best for the world.


And, come on, Rod! Do we really want to measure ourselves against Congo, Rwanda, et al? Aren't we supposed to be the "shining beacon on the hill?"

Sorry to say this but your comment directly feeds into the arrogance that cases much of Americas hate around the world. We are not superior to any of these countries. We should not hold ourselves to a higher standard because that implies superiority. (I may not be explaining my self properly, but I hope you understand what I am trying to say.)
I come from a democratic third world country. I saw every day how the politicians got richer while we got poorer. And yes when the rich Americans came we resented them. Should U know give up your wealth because others don't have it?
I still maintain that that Bush is not the worst and Iraq is not the most deadly. Yes it is a war that never should have started but same said for the war in Sir Lanka and Chechnya, No Un monitors there much more human rights violations but I see no yellow ribbons.

America has taken on the role of the world police, sometimes good sometimes bad but they take a stand on issues. Not everyone can be a Switzerland. One of my biggest issues with the Liberal government formerly in power in Canada is they never took a stand on anything. Wait and see.
At least your government takes a clear position and stands by it. Not always the correct one but a stand none the less.
America may also be starting wars but they do a lot of good around the world as well which they rarely get credit for.

In closing,
I don't agree on the way the War on terrorism is being fought buy I do believe it must be fought. What would the world be like if no one stood up to Hitler? Many good Americans died then too. If you have a solution on how we can all live in peace with no blood shed please share it with me.

Please keep up your campaign against the war in Iraq, but try and be a little more objective. Also try and include a little something about my people in Africa and other blatant human rights violations.

Taliesin
08-24-2006, 02:00 PM
Mike

The first thing they teach is when somebody says something is obvious they are normally expressing their own prejudices and assumptions.

I'd like to thank you for so clearly and repeatedly demonstrating this point.

But given your difficulty in understanding I'll ask my question another way.

Please explain your apparent belief that the BBC can be a "biased to the Left" and and be a "platform for the Left" without having a complete left wing bias.

BTW - Do you really believe playing semantics will disguse the fact that you have put forward nothing that backs up your argument that the BBC is biased to the left.

dps
08-24-2006, 02:19 PM
To David Chalk,

Did you really think you'd get a straight answer from Mike Sigman.

Hogan
08-24-2006, 02:43 PM
No. It is important to establish if someone is willing to give thier credentials or not. It helps to establish if what the person is saying is something to pay attention to or just entertainment.

Did I miss something? People are debating about Bush and you want him, to 'prove' himself, to provide his aikido credentials?? Does having aikido credentials lend more credence to an argument??

dps
08-24-2006, 05:46 PM
It is an ongoing problem with Mike.

No matter what thread Mike posts in, the conversation ends up about Mike's self proclaimed specialty. It is not just on this forum but on any forum or website that Mike appears on, all his conversation end up talking about Mike's self proclaimed specialty. Initially he confined himself to informing Tai Chi practitioners that they and their teachers and their teacher's teachers, etc are wrong and he has the answer. But Mike, being the ambitious lad that he is, spread his wings and took to informing other martial artists in Judo and Aikido that they too are not doing it right and that he has the answer to correct the problem that he sees.

There is no problem with Mike being a specialist in internal strength, a practitioner of Tai Chi, or expressing his opinion in the political field. If he is going to claim to have trained in Aikido, have knowledge about Aikido and advice based on his training and experience in Aikido, then he should have no problem telling us who do have training and knowledge about Aikido how long he has trained, what rank he has attained, and who was his Sensei(s).

Is there anyone else who claims to have trained in Aikido on this forum that refuses to show their credentials regarding Aikido?

Mike Sigman
08-24-2006, 08:26 PM
Is there anyone else who claims to have trained in Aikido on this forum that refuses to show their credentials regarding Aikido?I know this is an alien thought to you, David, but the way I grew up in the martial arts, we didn't bad-mouth someone on the internet, we just showed up at their door one day and asked to see their stuff. So I'm at a loss with you guys that work with the keyboard. How do you think we can find an amenable solution? Would Ueshiba have bad-mouthed someone long-distance?

Regards,

Mike Sigman
41 Rio Vista Circle
Durango, Colorado 81301

David Orange
08-24-2006, 08:46 PM
Mike Sigman
41 Rio Vista Circle
Durango, Colorado 81301


Beers or chain saws?

Mike Sigman
08-24-2006, 08:51 PM
Beers or chain saws?
Up to you. The only thing I'm against is the need for witnesses. ;)

Incidentally, I always find it interesting that people talk about "martial arts", but think the idea of trying them out is deplorable. Imagine reading that somewhere in a book that "martial arts is cool because of the philosophy, but the idea of really fighting is just plain awful". ;) Imagine what O-Sensei would have done if he had just deplored all the challenges that were brought to him. Tsk. :cool:

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mark Uttech
08-24-2006, 08:57 PM
Wow. I have to hand it to Mike Sigman for this simple gesture of publishing his address. To me, that is claim enough; to have the confidence. That gesture says two possible things:
1) maybe I am going to get killed
2) maybe i can teach you something
In gassho,
Mark

Neil Mick
08-24-2006, 09:11 PM
Hello Neil, I hope you are doing well.

And the same for you, too.

Are you willing to convert to Islam? Are you willing to give up your current standard of living. If not, what are you willing to do to maintain the life you now enjoy?

I'm not really sure what relevance this has, to the conversation. :confused:

I believe in negotiations if the other person wants to sit down and talk. My understanding of the Islamic terrorists is that they want to wipe us out.

My understanding is that Islamic terrorists want a whole lot of things: they want the US to suffer, as the Lebanese suffered; they want Israel out of Palestine; the US out of Saudi Arabia; et al.

This is my problem with lumping together a whole range of extremists under one umbrella. You risk oversimplification.

We depend on our governments to protect us but we do not want our governments to get there hands dirty. Do you really believer that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone.

No: and I never suggested this. But, I think that we can still toe the line between abiding by international law, and sitting passively by.


And, come on, Rod! Do we really want to measure ourselves against Congo, Rwanda, et al? Aren't we supposed to be the "shining beacon on the hill?"

Wow: that "code" thing is really cool. Didn't know about that feature. :cool:

Sorry to say this but your comment directly feeds into the arrogance that cases much of Americas hate around the world. We are not superior to any of these countries.

Sorry to day this but you misconstrued my comment. Allow me to correct:

American's do not = the US government; or

governmental standards do not = ethnic or nationalist superiority

Also, your assumption seems to ignore the reality that we are a superpower. A superpower has certain responsibilities, which, if not upheld: damage its credibility.

And, if we do not hold ourselves to a high standard: what standard shall it be? China's human-rights record? Or how about S. Africa's appalling record of AIDS prevention, whose gov't officials promote lemon-juice as a means of preventing AIDS?

No, we are the "shining beacon on the hill," because we carry a very high standard of policy (even when the actions subvert the words). It's been that way since WW2. And to suggest otherwise is either being disingenuous, or naive. The UN is housed in the US; the world's currency is based on US currency; the IMF is largely controlled by the US.

The hatred ppl carry for the US is not based on our high standards: its based on our veering away from those very standards, we should be keeping.

We should not hold ourselves to a higher standard because that implies superiority. (I may not be explaining my self properly, but I hope you understand what I am trying to say.)

Noooo....not at all.

If my country follows international law and yours doesn't: it could be said that my country has higher standards. It can NOT be said, however: that my country is "superior." The word for this is called "nationalist."

I come from a democratic third world country. I saw every day how the politicians got richer while we got poorer. And yes when the rich Americans came we resented them. Should U know give up your wealth because others don't have it?

Again...where's the relevance? :confused:

I still maintain that that Bush is not the worst and Iraq is not the most deadly. Yes it is a war that never should have started but same said for the war in Sir Lanka and Chechnya

And, I still maintain that that depends upon how you define "worst." "Worst leader?" No, definitely not. Pol Pot comes to mind. "Worst US President?" IMO, yes, but its too soon to tell (he could turn himself, and his cabinet, into the proper authorities to Geneva, tomorrow: and this would salvage his career, in my eyes). He still has 2 more years to go.

Iraq, the "most deadly" war? No...Darfur is worse. But, so what..?? It's wrong; we shouldn't be there; and it so resembles the folly of Vietnam, that it often gives Vietnam vets the shivers of deja vu.

America has taken on the role of the world police, sometimes good sometimes bad but they take a stand on issues.

And, a "world policeman" has to maintain the highest standard, possible. Otherwise, they are little better than the crooks that they are supposed to arrest.

At least your government takes a clear position and stands by it. Not always the correct one but a stand none the less.

Sometimes, the cure is worse than the disease.

America may also be starting wars but they do a lot of good around the world as well which they rarely get credit for.

Hardly. The US gets tons of credit. Just watch a State of the Union speech, sometime...if you can stomach the self-congratulatory back-patting.

In closing,
I don't agree on the way the War on terrorism is being fought buy I do believe it must be fought.

Would you break up a fight between two people by declaring it a "crusade;" breaking out the heavy guns and arresting everone of a certain ethnicity, involved?

Would you call this "dealing with the problem?"

Would you subvert your own laws, operate secret gulags and shoot at peaceful protestors, in a country you are supposed to be helping become democratic? Would you silence free speech, in their papers and rig their elections?

After all that, would you still call this "fighting the war on terrorism?"
If you did: then we seem to have different ideas of what "fighting terrorism" means.

What would the world be like if no one stood up to Hitler?

Oh ,jeez...yet ANOTHER reference to WW2 :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Many good Americans died then too. If you have a solution on how we can all live in peace with no blood shed please share it with me.

Here's a start: how about reaching out to people of other nations--no matter WHAT their income bracket--and working to win their hearts and minds, rather than working to gain control of their resources, huh? That would be an excellent start...instead of pushing a phony war based on fake intelligence and then calling it "fighting terrorism," when even the President now admits he was wrong, in '03.

That's my suggestion. And, as you probably know from studying Aikido: all complex and hard-won goals begin with the first step. :ai: :ki: :do:

Please keep up your campaign against the war in Iraq, but try and be a little more objective.

Objectivity is a myth.

Also try and include a little something about my people in Africa and other blatant human rights violations.

Again, not sure where this comes from, as this is a thread about Bush (altho, with the current string of threads comig down the tubes...maybe it should be renamed "Mikey is..." ;)

Moses
08-24-2006, 09:22 PM
Right or wrong,
I give Mike credit for standing by his words
Moses

Mike Sigman
08-24-2006, 09:28 PM
Wow. I have to hand it to Mike Sigman for this simple gesture of publishing his address. To me, that is claim enough; to have the confidence. That gesture says two possible things:
1) maybe I am going to get killed
2) maybe i can teach you something
In gassho,
MarkYou left out number 3, Mark. But 2 out of 3 isn't bad. ;)

Mike

Mark Uttech
08-24-2006, 10:39 PM
Of course, number 3.... But you have to leave something hanging. It is like fishing, you want the fish to bite.
In gassho
Mark

dps
08-24-2006, 11:36 PM
I know this is an alien thought to you, David, but the way I grew up in the martial arts, we didn't bad-mouth someone on the internet, we just showed up at their door one day and asked to see their stuff. So I'm at a loss with you guys that work with the keyboard. How do you think we can find an amenable solution? Would Ueshiba have bad-mouthed someone long-distance?

Regards,

Mike Sigman
41 Rio Vista Circle
Durango, Colorado 81301

I know this is an alien thought to you Mike, but the way I grew up in the martial arts, especially Aikido, we didn't make claims that we were not able to back up with facts such as how long we studied, what rank we are and who were our Senseis. So I am at a loss with you guys who work the keyboard but are unwilling to backup claims made with verifiable credentials. We can find an amenable solution by you telling us Aikidokas how long did you practice Aikido, what rank are you, and who were your senseis. O'Sensei was not shy about telling people what his lineage in the martial arts was and all the Aikidoka I have ever met never hesitated to give that information when asked.

I never bad mouthed you or questioned your ability or knowledge about Tai Chi or the internal strenght training. I studied Tai Chi for about a month twenty years ago and do not consider myself knowledgeable enough to make claims about it. I have studied Aikido. From 1985 to 1990 I practiced Aikido two to four times a week at Youngstown State University under Sensei Larry Hlywa from New Castle Aikikai and Sensei Chuck Cycyk of the Youngstown Aikikai. The early part of my training we were not affiliated with any organization to receive ranking. The last few years we were under the United States Aikido Federation and I was fourth kyu when due to a work accident I had to quit. Sixteen years later I started actively practicing in Shodokan Aikido under Sensei Michael Gelum in the Japanese Aikido Association/ USA where I am starting as a white belt again.

This is the information that I am asking you to provide to establish your credentials as a person who has studied Aikido as you have claimed.

David

Guilty Spark
08-25-2006, 01:39 AM
Party police!

Starting a thread on Bush, well thats just expecting trouble. Did anyone really expect this to end nicely? Sillyness.

High brow (personal attacks) are just as bad as low brow ones. The name calling and attacks are suffocating the thread guys. Where are we at now, giving out addresses to arrange after school internet fights? Brutal. Side note, if your calling bush an F-ing moron then you can't cry foul when someone attacks you. Double standard.

You can't negotiate with terrorists. They want to kill you. They try and kill you and don't want to listen to your side of the argument. Of course we don't really see eye to eye with their argument either i suppose. In the end killing them isn't gonna win this. It's too easy to breed more of them.

You gotta win their hearts and minds. You have to convince the local population that your side is not only the right side but the winning side. I say that because these people are easily swayed and whats right and wrong to us doesn't really carry a lot of weight with them. They want to be on the winning side and who can really blame them. Remember when the US promised to help out the Kurds during gulf war 1 if they rose up against saddam? They did then we left them out to dry? We really crapped the bed on that one.

We know Bush went to war for some bullshit reasons. Faked intelligence reports bla bla bla. Does he want oil, does he have alterior motives? Maybe probably whatever. Bad politician? Imagine that.

It's more simple than that. There are people out there who are not willing to let you, choose what religion you wish to follow. Let women vote. Let you wear shorts. treat everyone equally. Let you do things that YOU want. Basically take away your ability to choose. And what greater thing than someones ability to choose their own fate? Whatever the reasons we got mixed up in all this, I for one support giving everyone the world over to choose how they live for themselves.


Freedom. I know it's shoved down our throats, used in properganda and silly speaches when when people are trying to kill you because you want to give someone the right to choose life for themselves, your whole views on the world get a lot simpler, believe me. I'm 27 and I think I grew up in 4 days out here. Things came into focus pretty fast. I'm not suggesting we force democracy on everyone because thats hippocritical but in the end we're the good guys and they are the bad guys.

Upyu
08-25-2006, 03:10 AM
Not that I care either way about this issue...and maybe this is sticking my nose into someone elses' business but...



This is the information that I am asking you to provide to establish your credentials as a person who has studied Aikido as you have claimed.


I don't study aikidoh either, nor do I study Tai Chi. But you don't see us locking horns over who studied with who do you? It's all the same stuff dude, just chill ;)

I think the following quote by George is enough to say that Mike's authoritaw on what he talks about is justified.

Take it for what you will.


So, as I said before, I would really recommend that you take any proffered opportunity to attend a seminar with Mike... He definitely has the stuff. I directly experienced his ability to strike with explosive power and he gave me some strikes, which he did effortlessly, which would have been fight-enders had they been directed diferently. His oft commented on tendency to say exactly whatever is in his head can be forgiven because what he is saying is based on good solid experience and knowledge. And, most importantly in my own mind, he can definitely teach others how to do it.

Mike Sigman
08-25-2006, 07:43 AM
I know this is an alien thought to you Mike, but the way I grew up in the martial arts, especially Aikido, we didn't make claims that we were not able to back up with facts such as how long we studied, what rank we are and who were our Senseis. So I am at a loss with you guys who work the keyboard but are unwilling to backup claims made with verifiable credentials. Why don't you start a separate thread instead of disrupting an ongoing one? And why don't you search the archives to find where this question has been answered? And you need to post the "claims" I have made that need credentials to support them. And I hope you don't think time and rank are what it takes to give you martial arts credentials.

Mike Sigman

Hogan
08-25-2006, 08:49 AM
.... Is there anyone else who claims to have trained in Aikido on this forum that refuses to show their credentials regarding Aikido?

Again, how is this relevant in determining 'gravitas' in a politcal argument?

Ron Tisdale
08-25-2006, 09:31 AM
It isn't relevent to the current conversation.

Off topic:
And it isn't as relevant to other conversations as some would have it. Let me say this:

Given George Ledyard's recommendation above, I'd say that anyone still clamoring for "credentials" is probably loosing sight of what matters here. It's not what teachers, or how long, or what rank.

Great teachers often have lousy students.

Poor students often train / study for long periods of time (look at me ;)).

Rank holds in a dojo...even in a style with multiple dojo, rank can be a red herring from dojo to dojo.

So at some point, that leaves us with 'can he do?'. George has said he can, and we know of George. So I'm willing to play along for the sake of discussion. Anything else is off-topic.

Best,
Ron (We all know of Mark Tannenbaum...this isn't one of those...)

Mike Sigman
08-25-2006, 09:49 AM
It isn't relevent to the current conversation.

Off topic:
And it isn't as relevant to other conversations as some would have it. Let me say this:

Given George Ledyard's recommendation above, I'd say that anyone still clamoring for "credentials" is probably loosing sight of what matters here. It's not what teachers, or how long, or what rank.

Great teachers often have lousy students.

Poor students often train / study for long periods of time (look at me ;)).

Rank holds in a dojo...even in a style with multiple dojo, rank can be a red herring from dojo to dojo.

So at some point, that leaves us with 'can he do?'. George has said he can, and we know of George. So I'm willing to play along for the sake of discussion. Anything else is off-topic.

Best,
Ron (We all know of Mark Tannenbaum...this isn't one of those...)

Let him start a separate thread under "Open Discussions". I have reasonable credentials in Aikido, as many people know. What I think I can argue is that people like David Skaggs have no real credentials in Aikido... a debate point I've made before and I'll be happy to make it again. As I've said before, anyone with real Aikido credentials should be able to demonstrate with ease the simple "ki tests" that Tohei shows in his style. Tohei simply takes the cornerstone of Aikido and makes it his banner... but what he does is common to all real Aikido and he knew it. It's not some things which are just done by the "Ki Society", although I know that comes as a surprise to some people. ;)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
08-25-2006, 12:00 PM
Party police!

High brow (personal attacks) are just as bad as low brow ones. The name calling and attacks are suffocating the thread guys. Where are we at now, giving out addresses to arrange after school internet fights? Brutal.

Thank you! A voice of sanity amidst the sturm and drang.

Side note, if your calling bush an F-ing moron then you can't cry foul when someone attacks you. Double standard.

Agree to disagree. Bush is a public figure: it's only a double-standard if Bush were posting here.

You can't negotiate with terrorists. They want to kill you. They try and kill you and don't want to listen to your side of the argument. Of course we don't really see eye to eye with their argument either i suppose. In the end killing them isn't gonna win this. It's too easy to breed more of them.

Here's my contention: terror is a verb, not a noun. Is Hezbollah committing acts of terror when they rebuild Lebanese houses? How about the US Army, when the committed "shock and awe" on the Iraqi's, or the IDF, when they blew up a power plant..with no militants around?

The "war on terror" is a misnomer. You cannot declare war on a verb.

You gotta win their hearts and minds. You have to convince the local population that your side is not only the right side but the winning side. I say that because these people are easily swayed and whats right and wrong to us doesn't really carry a lot of weight with them. They want to be on the winning side and who can really blame them.

Yes!


Remember when the US promised to help out the Kurds during gulf war 1 if they rose up against saddam? They did then we left them out to dry? We really crapped the bed on that one.

Yep.

We know Bush went to war for some bullshit reasons. Faked intelligence reports bla bla bla. Does he want oil, does he have alterior motives? Maybe probably whatever. Bad politician? Imagine that.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I understand why we went to Iraq, now. Greg Palast spells it out pretty clearly in "Armed Madhouse." (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0525949682/104-4248619-9563901?v=glance&n=283155) I can explain the (2) plans that motivated the invasion, if you like.

in the end we're the good guys and they are the bad guys.

By what standard? Is Iran the "bad guys?" And, were we the "good guys" in the '50's, when we overthrew their democratic gov't and installed the Shah?

Hogan
08-25-2006, 12:44 PM
..By what standard? Is Iran the "bad guys?" And, were we the "good guys" in the '50's, when we overthrew their democratic gov't and installed the Shah?

Just more proof of the relevance the article that Mike Sigman provided, by Mick Borone:

"At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism. No idea is morally superior to another. Hitler had his way, we have ours -- who's to say who is right?"

dbotari
08-25-2006, 01:09 PM
Here's my contention: terror is a verb, not a noun.

That may be your contention but its wrong "Terror" is a noun.

Neil Mick
08-25-2006, 02:11 PM
That may be your contention but its wrong "Terror" is a noun.

That's nice of you to claim this, but simply saying "no you're wrong," doesn't really cut the mustard.

A little referencing is in order, instead of blindly saying "No you're wrong."

And, I challenge you to come up with a clear definition of "terrorist."

Ron Tisdale
08-25-2006, 02:49 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terror

ter‧ror  /ˈtɛrər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

--noun 1. intense, sharp, overmastering fear: to be frantic with terror.
2. an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror: to be a terror to evildoers.
3. any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France.
4. violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism.
5. Informal. a person or thing that is especially annoying or unpleasant.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1325--75; < L, equiv. to terr(ēre) to frighten + -or -or1; r. ME terrour < AF < L, as above]

Best,
Ron (ask and you shall recieve...)

Neil Mick
08-25-2006, 03:50 PM
Ron (ask and you shall recieve...)

Thanks for that, Ron. Now, please show me how this definition can be applied to delineate "terror" groups, from "nonterror" groups.

2. an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror: to be a terror to evildoers.
3. any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France.
4. violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism.

So, when Hezbollah used violence to intimidate/coerce, are they terrorists? Are they STILL terrorists, when they work to rebuild Lebanese houses?

How about the US, with the "Shock and Awe" policy? Or, when the IDF kidnap elected Hamas leaders, in Palestine? Are they terrorists because they were (clearly) using violence to intimidate the Iraqi/Palestinian people; or do they stop becoming terrorists merely because they are elected gov't's?

And, if being elected democratically is the standard: then what about Hamas, and Hezbollah...both of which have elected officials in Palestine, and Lebanon, respectively?

Perhaps you might suggest that they are simply "rogue" groups with the odd official, and so this does not count. OK, then: what about Muammar Kadafi, who plotted to blow up planes in his time? He certainly is a leader of a gov't. Or, how about US officials who (privately or publicy) supported the KKK (most definitely a "terror organization," by this definition) in their time? Were they sponsors of terrorism, and thus terrorists, themselves?

What about the gov't of Sudan, which sponsors the Janjaweed militia, who are responsible for the genocide in Darfur? Are they not terrorists, merely because they are the gov't?

You see why I claim that "terror" is a verb, not a noun? It is too easy to claim a group is a "terror" organization when you don't like their politics; while at the same time supporting your gov't, which does exactly the same thing, when it suits their needs.

James Davis
08-25-2006, 04:48 PM
So, when Hezbollah used violence to intimidate/coerce, are they terrorists? Are they STILL terrorists, when they work to rebuild Lebanese houses?


In my opinion, yes and yes. They're still terrorists according to the people they are planning to later attack.

Neil,

Regardless of how many hours I volunteered for Habitat For Humanity in the past, blowing up your house would still make me an A-hole. If I blew up your house to frighten your neighbors for some sort of political gain, I'd be a terrorist (regardless of how many nails I hammered into someone's roof).

Osama built a lot of roads. He's still a terrorist.

Have a good weekend, everybody. :)

Neil Mick
08-25-2006, 07:05 PM
In my opinion, yes and yes. They're still terrorists according to the people they are planning to later attack.

Neil,

Regardless of how many hours I volunteered for Habitat For Humanity in the past, blowing up your house would still make me an A-hole. If I blew up your house to frighten your neighbors for some sort of political gain, I'd be a terrorist (regardless of how many nails I hammered into someone's roof).

Osama built a lot of roads. He's still a terrorist.

OK, then Osama's a terrorist. As is Hamas. As is the IDF, the US, and anyone else who employs violence to coerce, or intimidate.

But, where does this leave us, in applying who is a terrorist, and who isn't? Nowehere, because when a word includes everybody, then it defines nothing, and no one.

So, who are we waging war against, if everyone's a terrorist?

This is why I say that the word is a verb, not a noun. When Hamas employs suicide bombers: they are employing terror. When they do civic work, they are not.

Does this let them off the hook? Absolutely not. What it does is limit the scope of this war on terror, to a police action, rather than a war.

Cops bust people for doing wrong things, not for who they are. Cops don't "go after bad guys (altho, they sometimes misuse this term)." Cops go after people who are committing crimes.

And, if we went after groups that use terror-tactics (without using them, ourselves): we'd be a lot closer, in "winning this (unwinnable) war." Until then, we're doing little more than chasing our own tails: calling the kettle black, while funding all the pots and making some messy stews, all our own.

Guilty Spark
08-25-2006, 08:22 PM
Hey Neil,

Agree to disagree. Bush is a public figure: it's only a double-standard if Bush were posting here.
Fair enough. Obviously as a public figure he is more inclined to recieve personal attacks which in no way can he respond. Personally I'll still do my best not to attack someone who doesn't have the ability to defend themselves but that's just me trying to be self-rightious.

I'll give you the misnomer on the whole war on terror thing. It was obviously ment to scare *us* into action. I've heard people make a lot of references to ancient Rome and Caesar. Scare your people, make them see enemies and they will do what you tell them to. Might be truth to that.
Did we make these enemies or where they already there? That argument can go on for another 30 pages. I'm more concerned with the fact that their ARE enemies and dealing with them in the short term to give smarter people enough change to deal with them in the long term.

Who is the good guys and who is the bad? Obviously that's an open ended question and everyone will have a different answer.
*I* think we are the good guys because I firmly believe when we take life it's to, in the end, preserve life. We are tryign to make the world a better place. I know I know, it's easy to argue semantics and suggest hitler was doing the same thing etc.. Well how can you argue that.

I guess in the end you just gotta go with what you know is right in your own heart, and hope your sacrifice has given others the ability to choose what's right in their own heart too, instead of being told whats right and whats wrong.

Getting wrapped around what the word terror means seems like small change.
I do see what you mean how one can argue 'terrorisim' can be used to describe shock and awe, only that we use terrorisim to describe a certian group of individuals.

It was ask are they terrorists when they help rebuild peoples houses after?
Well if I push someone infront of a car and then give them CPR after am I a hero?
Hezbollahs actions caused the strikes, the fact that they are trying to paint themselves as heros for helping rebuild after was pretty obvious in comming.
Perhaps the same way american companies help rebuild iraq after wrecking stuff :)

David Orange
08-25-2006, 08:59 PM
OK, then Osama's a terrorist. As is Hamas. As is the IDF, the US, and anyone else who employs violence to coerce, or intimidate.

But, where does this leave us, in applying who is a terrorist, and who isn't?

A terrorist is a non-military person (or a military person operating outside official military structures) attacking CIVILIANS to murder them in horrible ways, inflicting TERROR in the civilian populace to force them to pressure their governments into doing what the terrorists want. 9/11, the London train bombings, the Madrid bombings, the bombings in India and Bali, the kidnappings and beheadings in the Philipines are all designed to strike terror into CIVILIAN hearts to force them to pressure their governments to acquiesce to the terrorists' demands.

The American "shock and awe" campaign was a MILITARY action and while it may have terrorized the civilian populace, its aim was not to make the civilians put pressure on their government. Its purpose was to destroy that government outright.

So militaries attack other nations' militaries and governments with the direct aim of putting them out of commission. Terrorists attack civilians to terrorize them into putting pressure on their governments to change. IDF does not fall into this category. They are an official, uniformed military that stands apart from the civilian population to defend that population.

Hizbollah and Hamas are un-uniformed guerrillas who hide among the civilians and fire from among them to draw defensive return fire. They win both by killing Israeli (and American) civilians, but they also win by having their own civilians killed. Then they can cry to heaven how their innocent people were killed. And for some reason, the media tend to ignore that these same wailers were firing rifles, mortars, rpgs and rockets from amidst those poor civilians.

This is why I say that the word is a verb, not a noun. When Hamas employs suicide bombers: they are employing terror. When they do civic work, they are not.

When they employ suicide bombers, they are employing terror (a noun, by the way: the verb would be "terrorize"). But when they do civic work, they are just building a base for terror and gaining civilian sympathies to recruit more suicide bombers. And this also sways naive people to see them as "the same as us."

Neil Mick
08-26-2006, 02:51 AM
A terrorist is a non-military person (or a military person operating outside official military structures) attacking CIVILIANS to murder them in horrible ways, inflicting TERROR in the civilian populace to force them to pressure their governments into doing what the terrorists want. 9/11, the London train bombings, the Madrid bombings, the bombings in India and Bali, the kidnappings and beheadings in the Philipines are all designed to strike terror into CIVILIAN hearts to force them to pressure their governments to acquiesce to the terrorists' demands.

OK, so you say that a terrorist attacks civilians. This is what makes them terrorists.

The American "shock and awe" campaign was a MILITARY action and while it may have terrorized the civilian populace, its aim was not to make the civilians put pressure on their government. Its purpose was to destroy that government outright.

Sorry, but this is simply illogical: why call it "Shock and Awe," if its not meant to terrorize the public? But, this is a side-issue. Let's assume that you're right. What about MILITARY forces, in MILITARY garb, who commit acts to terrorize the civilian populace.

The IDF, in Lebanon, for instance. Amnesty Int'l has documented reports of the IDF shooting at buildings and civilians with no Hezbollah present (and please, let's not deny reality). The IDF destroying the only power-plant, in Gaza. The US knowingly destroying the Iraqi infrastructure, in 1991, to pressure Saddam. The Indonese army's actions against the Achenese population.

I can pull out a lot of terror-style tactics that militaries have committed against civilian populations.

Does simply being in a military garb separate the "terrorists," from the "militia's," even when those militia's commit the same acts?

So militaries attack other nations' militaries and governments with the direct aim of putting them out of commission.

And when militaries attack civilian's: they are not terrorists, why?

Terrorists attack civilians to terrorize them into putting pressure on their governments to change.

Militaries do this too.

IDF does not fall into this category. They are an official, uniformed military that stands apart from the civilian population to defend that population.

Ah, yes: they were "defending" Israel, by "invading" Lebanon, and targeting civilian houses, ambulances, roads, and blockading countries. Of course. :rolleyes:

Hizbollah and Hamas are un-uniformed guerrillas who hide among the civilians and fire from among them to draw defensive return fire. They win both by killing Israeli (and American) civilians, but they also win by having their own civilians killed. Then they can cry to heaven how their innocent people were killed.

Nope, the tactics are merely different. The only difference, as I see it: is in the willingness for Hamas/Hezbollah to sacrifice their own. It could be argued that militaries sacrifice their own all the time...to achieve a military objective.

Terrorists often think of themselves in miltary terms. The "Syndionese Liberation Army;" the "Weathermen;" the KKK: all think of themselves as quasi-military. So, their mindset doesn't seem to make them separate, either.

And for some reason, the media tend to ignore that these same wailers were firing rifles, mortars, rpgs and rockets from amidst those poor civilians.

Sorry, but as I see it: the media focuses obsessively on this prospect...proven or no.

When they employ suicide bombers, they are employing terror (a noun, by the way: the verb would be "terrorize").

Semantically, yes: but I hate arguing semantics.

But when they do civic work, they are just building a base for terror and gaining civilian sympathies to recruit more suicide bombers.

But, when the US does civic work (in Iraq), they are just building a base for more (military) terror and gaining civilian sympathies to control the resources.

Yep, with very little tinkering: your sentence can be fit, for what the US does, as well.

Now, tell me the difference, again?

And this also sways naive people to see them as "the same as us."

Oh, yeah: I see the difference now...uh huh. :rolleyes:

Mark Freeman
08-26-2006, 04:54 AM
I'll give you the misnomer on the whole war on terror thing. It was obviously ment to scare *us* into action. I've heard people make a lot of references to ancient Rome and Caesar. Scare your people, make them see enemies and they will do what you tell them to. Might be truth to that.
Did we make these enemies or where they already there? That argument can go on for another 30 pages. I'm more concerned with the fact that their ARE enemies and dealing with them in the short term to give smarter people enough change to deal with them in the long term.

In a recent ICM poll only 1% of the respondants believed that the UK was a safer place since we joined the US in their War on Terror. Now by any stretch of the imagination that is an awful result for a government believing it is doing the right thing. Now of course, the population of the country could be wrong, but when we hear our politicians denying that there is any link between UK foreign policy and the increase in home grown terrorist acts, we as a people hold our heads in our hands.

None of us here thinks that the young men plotting to blow innocent people into oblivion are anything but wrong, however, the fact that they could go so far has to have some motivation, it can't be all down to twisted religious thinking. In their eyes the US is the bogeyman and the UK being their main ally is a legitimate target.

Using fear to control your populace is as Grant points out, an old tactic, and will continue to be effective as long as the population slavishly believes those pedalling the fear. The UK voted to go to war in Iraq based on Blair's empassioned pleas to the House of Commons that if we didn't Saddam would use the WMD's he 'definitely' had pointed in our direction, not only that it could happen within 45 minutes. The house went along with him, he had scared them into voting the way he wanted.

The only truely honorable man in the cabinet ( Robin Cook ) resigned from the cabinet in a speech that received the first standing ovation in the history of parliament, in it he said the government had lied to it's people and therefore he could not be part of it. I believe that this ovation was due to many MP's realising that they should be doing the same but didn't have the ball's to do the same - they were applauding someone they would like to be.

Fear is a great motivator, and when the fear is induced by falsehood, this is often replaced with anger. The majority of people in my country feel angry that we were mislead into doing something that has ultimately left people feeling even more unsafe than before, on top of which we are losing civil freedom's fought for and won over centuries.

We have to start looking at more constructive ways than declaring 'war' on everything whether it be terror, drugs, crime, poverty etc. We need long hard thinking and the ability to take action that we may not think rational. I remember seeing an interview with the leader of Columbia's major drugs cartel, an investigative journalist had somehow got to spend time with him filming his operation, which was a model of efficient manufacture and distribution. At the time they were massively ramping up their distribution to europe and particularly the UK. When asked the question "How could you ever be stopped?" He laughed and said If you legalise it I would be out of business tomorrow. But until then I continue.
A solution that no major western government is prepared to contemplate, but one that in the words of the enemy general would defeat him at a stroke.
Maybe we have to consider unpalatable options to break out of the cycle of fight, lose, fight, win, fight and lose again.

A few rambling thoughts,

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
08-26-2006, 11:45 AM
In a recent ICM poll only 1% of the respondants believed that the UK was a safer place since we joined the US in their War on Terror. Now by any stretch of the imagination that is an awful result for a government believing it is doing the right thing. Now of course, the population of the country could be wrong, but when we hear our politicians denying that there is any link between UK foreign policy and the increase in home grown terrorist acts, we as a people hold our heads in our hands. Actually, England got along fine with Nazi Germany until finally they had to declare war on Germany because of the invasion of Poland. Then Germany turned on them. So England shouldn't have declared war on Germany and Germany would have left them alone and England would have been a "lot safer"? Somehow, I doubt it. Are you suggesting that if England simply didn't address the growing level of terrorism (remember, it started in the 70's, not during Bush's presidency), England would be safer?

I hate to tell you this, but if England had done nothing (which it's also famous for doing), it would not be safer. Sooner or later they come for you too, my beamish boy... even if you hide your head in the sand. ;)

Mike Sigman

deepsoup
08-26-2006, 01:17 PM
Now by any stretch of the imagination that is an awful result for a government believing it is doing the right thing. Now of course, the population of the country could be wrong, but when we hear our politicians denying that there is any link between UK foreign policy and the increase in home grown terrorist acts, we as a people hold our heads in our hands.

I wonder if they genuinely do believe they're doing the right thing? Remember the promises of an "ethical foreign policy" (later changed to a foreign policy with an "ethical dimension")? I have a depressing feeling that they don't really think what is ethical is particularly relevant.

Its a pretty shabby affair when millions of people turn out to demonstrate against an act of aggression and the government of a <ahem> democracy just ignore them.

if England simply didn't address the growing level of terrorism (remember, it started in the 70's, not during Bush's presidency), England would be safer?

Actually, the terrorism that we became used to in the '70s was mostly a different kind altogether. Funnily enough, those particular terrorists enjoyed a steady flow of funds and support from the good people of New York.

Neil Mick
08-26-2006, 04:08 PM
Hi Grant,

My time is short, so I can only answer part of your post, for now.

Who is the good guys and who is the bad? Obviously that's an open ended question and everyone will have a different answer.

Good question: how can you tell the good guys, from the bad? Certainly, the "bad" guys call themselves "good." So, how do we know who the "good guys" are?

Some ppl confuse this idea, that we cannot distinguish the good guys from the bad, with moral relativism. These ppl seem to misunderstand what moral relativism, is.

Every single military aggressor in history and on the planet claims to work on the side of "good." Often, their claims are preceeded by boasts that "God" is on their side, as well.

So, how do we know who's "good?" Imagine an Aikido class, where everyone is on the same moral footing. Who's the "bad" guy, here? The one who fails to follow etiquette.

It's the same thing, with countries. The "bad" guys are those who fail to respect civilian life, fail to honor international law. Moral relativism comes in when one of the military powers starts rationalizing their slip into lawlessness, with necessity (the "time-bomb and the terrorist" is a good example of this rationalization, for torture. In the end, its a slippery slope).

*I* think we are the good guys because I firmly believe when we take life it's to, in the end, preserve life. We are tryign to make the world a better place.

Not sure who you mean by "we," here. If "we" means the US/Canada in the Iraqi occupation: then facts state otherwise. Perhaps "we" are a little more interested in preserving life than the insurgents (depending), but not by much, and certainly not enough.

I guess in the end you just gotta go with what you know is right in your own heart, and hope your sacrifice has given others the ability to choose what's right in their own heart too, instead of being told whats right and whats wrong.

Well, it's more than that. You have to go with what's right by written law. The heart can be easily fooled--I'm sure that many a suicide bomber took his path by "following his heart."

You have to listen to your heart: and you also have to remember your moral core, your center. Heart and mind together, that's the way to stay "good." I doubt, for example, that Lynndie England and Co went off to Gitmo rubbing their hands and planning on doing evil things to Arabs. Anyone can slip off the moral path: especially when this is tolerated, within the chain of command.

More later.

Taliesin
08-27-2006, 06:34 AM
OK so that now the debate has turned to 'terrorism' and 'war'.

For Terrorism the most appropriate quote is "The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize". - Originally said by VI Lennin and commonly quoted by Michael Collins. By this definition any actions and words designed purely to terrorize are acts of terrorism

The second thing is this declaration of 'War'.

Personally I think that it was practically the most stupid thing GWB did as President. After all the only time any terrorist organization achieved , or even came close to achieving their goals, was when they were officially recognized as enemies in a 'war' - That why the Provisional IRA were all classified as criminals by the UK Govt in the 1970's

By declaring it a 'war' (presumably because he wanted the votes in those US States that were holding fair elections) he gave OBL and his ilk, far more status, and far more legitimacy in his own , his supporters and the Arab world's eyes.

By then compounding that error by attacking another Arab country it looks like the claims of the United States being Anti-Arab are fair and true.

A more pragmatic solution would be to state that 9/11 was a crime not an act of war. The seriousness of the offense it not totally unprecedented. Oklahoma provides a previous example. Nobody declared war there. Timothy McVeigh was investigated, captured, tried and executed as a criminal under the appropriate US laws.

I appreciate that this would have had huge disadvantages

of not providing so much popular support,
of alienating the 'blood not solutions brigade', (not quite the same thing)
of not giving an excuse to violate the Civil Liberties and rights of American citizens (let alone foreign nationals),
it certainly would not have justified large scare missile and bombing attacks,
or the invasion of a country that had nothing to with the attacks in the first place.
and would have to be conducted under the law.

But I think we have to accept that GWB really did believe that if he escalated matters and gave even more people, even more incentive to hate and attack the US - then the United States would be safer.

The alternative is that he wanted the US and it's citizens to be at greater risk as it gives him more power


PS

To David Skaggs

Of Course I didn't expect a straight answer from Mike Sigman - it's fun watching him try to wriggle out of it though, isn't it.

Donald Pillow
08-27-2006, 07:30 AM
Well your cousin Leiv thinks he is an embarrassment to the United States.

I concur and heave a breath of relief that I have ALOT of companions who share my belief.

dps
08-27-2006, 10:25 AM
A more pragmatic solution would be to state that 9/11 was a crime not an act of war. The seriousness of the offense it not totally unprecedented. Oklahoma provides a previous example. Nobody declared war there. Timothy McVeigh was investigated, captured, tried and executed as a criminal under the appropriate US laws. Didn't the Clinton administration try to prosecute terrosist as criminals?


To David Skaggs

Of Course I didn't expect a straight answer from Mike Sigman - it's fun watching him try to wriggle out of it though, isn't it. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm
Which one would you pick? :)

Brad Pruitt
08-27-2006, 07:07 PM
Big Dog/Troller

Mike Sigman
08-27-2006, 08:15 PM
What I particularly love about the "peace and love" crowd is how selective they are in applying their 'philosophy' without seeing how obvious it is. :p

Skaggs, Pruitt... I'm waiting for this separate thread on "Aikido Credentials" with bated breath. Should be easy to clear up my credentials... and it should be easy to clear up yours and your instructors knowledge of simple basics, right?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mashu
08-27-2006, 09:09 PM
Big Dog/Troller

Perhaps, but tireless rebutter seems more appropriate.

Guilty Spark
08-27-2006, 11:40 PM
What's a bird dog?

Hey Neil, my time is short as well. We only get 30 mins a day on the net and it gets eaten up pretty fast.

How do you tell the good guys from the bad? Good question. Good and evil are tricky things. I agree everyone who's done naughty things in history probably thought HEY I'm a good guy, I'm doing good things here. I'm happy with doing what I feel is 'good' and what more can you really do that that? Do what you feel is right and hope for the best.

I believe the whole 'war on terrorisim' mantra was targeted at a specific audience. Caesar rallying the citizens of rome to support a campaign against the enemies of rome who want to kill them for what they have.
Thing is, it's true.
I know the war on terror can sound down right silly but I ca't think of a better way to describe the actions of some of these guys. Americans (whom at my level I have more respect for every day) go into a village and help them build stuff, give themn food and water, basically doing hearts and minds stuff. The 'other guys' come into the village, see the americans were there and like two divorced parents fighting and using children to get back at one another, take the toys away. Not only do they take the toys (building supplies and materials) away but they will kill a few people to 'teach them a lesson'.
Imagine your divorced and you buy your kids some cloths for school cause its the winter and your spouse takes the clothes away to use for their other kids, and beats the crap out of your own. Maybe that's a bad example but thats the picture I'm getting. Bottom line, we've giving them supplies tyring to help, other guys are taking that away and hurting them.
Of course one can argue by giving them supplies in the first place we're putting them in a positiont o be hurt. Perspective I guess.

We have to win this war. If we don't win it 'over there' we will be fighting it 'over here'. I enjoy the fact my wife can dress how she wants (though she doesn't seem interested in taking my suggestions heh) and go to the grocery store and not have to worry about being blown up.

I'll try and find an article i just read it in mcleans (I think.) It was about a french oil tanker being blown up. It basically went on to say that the french were directly opposed to bush, the US and everything that was going on. If there was a country who you DIDN'T want to bomb, it would have been the french. Terrorists went and blew up some french oil tanker (think it was an oil tanker). They couldn't find an american ship. When asked why the blew up the french ship considering frances oppisition to the US the terrorists said 'Thats okay, their all infidels anyways'.

Thats something I'm guessing all of us in this thread have in common. We're all infidels. Whether you guys want to believe it or not with your different opinions, we're all on the same side.

dps
08-28-2006, 09:53 AM
What's a bird dog?
Big Dog http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm

Neil Mick
08-28-2006, 02:25 PM
Personally I think that it was practically the most stupid thing GWB did as President. After all the only time any terrorist organization achieved , or even came close to achieving their goals, was when they were officially recognized as enemies in a 'war' - That why the Provisional IRA were all classified as criminals by the UK Govt in the 1970's

By declaring it a 'war' (presumably because he wanted the votes in those US States that were holding fair elections) he gave OBL and his ilk, far more status, and far more legitimacy in his own , his supporters and the Arab world's eyes.

By then compounding that error by attacking another Arab country it looks like the claims of the United States being Anti-Arab are fair and true.

A more pragmatic solution would be to state that 9/11 was a crime not an act of war.

I actually got cussed at by an Aikido Sensei for suggesting this, around October '01.

Pursuing this crime as a police action, instead of a military action, might have achieved an end-result. You have to wonder if W doesn't really want an end to the "War on Terror." After all, what's he going to terrorize American citizens with, if he can't use terrorists as a bugaboo?

The seriousness of the offense it not totally unprecedented. Oklahoma provides a previous example. Nobody declared war there. Timothy McVeigh was investigated, captured, tried and executed as a criminal under the appropriate US laws.

I appreciate that this would have had huge disadvantages of not providing so much popular support, of alienating the 'blood not solutions brigade', (not quite the same thing) of not giving an excuse to violate the Civil Liberties and rights of American citizens (let alone foreign nationals), it certainly would not have justified large scare missile and bombing attacks, or the invasion of a country that had nothing to with the attacks in the first place.
and would have to be conducted under the law.

Well put. I've always felt that the "War on Terror" is an incredibly unfortunate frame, as it elevates Al Qaeda from a fringe extremist group to a power vying against the US, in its own right. OBL must have been dancing jigs, the day W gave his "axis of evil" speech.

I believe the whole 'war on terrorisim' mantra was targeted at a specific audience. Caesar rallying the citizens of rome to support a campaign against the enemies of rome who want to kill them for what they have.
Thing is, it's true.
I know the war on terror can sound down right silly but I ca't think of a better way to describe the actions of some of these guys.

We can agree to disagree. The "war on terror" presumes that there's an "other side" to pursue. As I pointed out, earlier: it's very difficult to define who the "other guys" are, when "your side" uses terror, just like everyone else. This leads to things like racial and ethnic profiling (ppl detained for the crimes of "flying while Muslim, or an Arab").

We have to win this war.

It is impossible to "win" this "war." Say that we finally "get" OBL and the leadership of Al Qaeda. Ten more organizations and leaders will pop up in their place.

You cannot make war on an abstraction, or a verb. The US encountered the same problem with its "war on drugs," begun in the '60's. A lot of recreational drug-users were sent away for a long, long time; a few suppliers saw some time, and some were used as state's witness. Ultimately, nothing was solved. Bush 1's Admin helped funnel in crack into the US in the '80's, and a lot of private property was seized. Drug-use goes on, today; and the war on drugs is largely seen as a failed policy.

The scope was misguided; the goals and end-plans poorly articulated.

Had the US attempted to regulate the drug use and penalize excess traffickers: the story might well have been different.

If we don't win it 'over there' we will be fighting it 'over here'.

If we don't come to the realization that what's happening "over there" began with our little underhanded games of espionage, regime change and expansionism: then we will never understand why "they" hate us so much, and eventually, we will get another dose of it, over "here."

Thats something I'm guessing all of us in this thread have in common. We're all infidels. Whether you guys want to believe it or not with your different opinions, we're all on the same side.

I'm on the side of peace. Don't know where that puts me, on the "infidel" scale: but I have yet to encounter a religion that does not place a high value on peace. Islam is no different.

+++++++++++++++++

Off to the desert for a week...I'll be out of contact (and, in a media-black hole. Last year, I came back and the price of gas had risen 60 cents; Bush's popularity was in a nose-dive; and New Orleans was underwater).

Stay vigilant...peace. :cool:

James Davis
08-28-2006, 05:26 PM
I actually got cussed at by an Aikido Sensei for suggesting this, around October '01.

He's got that harmony thing figured out, huh? :rolleyes:

Pursuing this crime as a police action, instead of a military action, might have achieved an end-result.


Yeah. A bunch of taliban controlled cops wolfing down Afghanistan's version of doughnuts and saying, "Nope, we haven't gotten around to looking for Osama just yet." :rolleyes:




It is impossible to "win" this "war." Say that we finally "get" OBL and the leadership of Al Qaeda. Ten more organizations and leaders will pop up in their place.

OBL should still answer for his crimes, provided he's convicted. I'm sure plenty of lawyers are just itching to get him off on a technicality. :disgust:

You cannot make war on an abstraction, or a verb. The US encountered the same problem with its "war on drugs," begun in the '60's. A lot of recreational drug-users were sent away for a long, long time; a few suppliers saw some time, and some were used as state's witness. Ultimately, nothing was solved. Bush 1's Admin helped funnel in crack into the US in the '80's, and a lot of private property was seized. Drug-use goes on, today; and the war on drugs is largely seen as a failed policy. Unless seizing property was the government's intention the entire time... :eek:


Had the US attempted to regulate the drug use and penalize excess traffickers: the story might well have been different.

The most cost effective way to fight drug use is with treatment facilities. In moments of clarity, drug users do realize that they have a problem.



I'm on the side of peace. Don't know where that puts me, on the "infidel" scale: but I have yet to encounter a religion that does not place a high value on peace. Islam is no different.

Why don't we see more Muslim leadership denouncing the actions of terrorists? Or do they not even regard these terrorists as Muslims? Do they realize the horrible face their actions put on Islam for some people?

Why aren't more people taking to the streets to protest the hijacking of Islam, in addition to the cartoons depicting Mohammed? Fear of retribution, perhaps?

Off to the desert for a week...I'll be out of contact (and, in a media-black hole. Last year, I came back and the price of gas had risen 60 cents; Bush's popularity was in a nose-dive; and New Orleans was underwater).
And you're leaving again?! :D


Stay safe. Talk to you later.

Neil Mick
09-06-2006, 03:05 PM
He's got that harmony thing figured out, huh? :rolleyes:

Not even close. But at least he was the first, to admit it.

Yeah. A bunch of taliban controlled cops wolfing down Afghanistan's version of doughnuts and saying, "Nope, we haven't gotten around to looking for Osama just yet." :rolleyes:

And, sending in a bunch of 9-11-hyped soldier-boys on a loose ethical leash succeeded, did it?

Unless seizing property was the government's intention the entire time... :eek:

Good point.

Why don't we see more Muslim leadership denouncing the actions of terrorists?

Perhaps they'd rather not have a bomber ram their car, on the way home from work... :eek:

Do they realize the horrible face their actions put on Islam for some people?

Do the US leaders realize the horrible face their violent actions put on American's, for other people?

Let's face it: the White Mansion is occupied by a faction of extremists. They have ordered actions of military terror around the world, using one attack as an excuse to remain in a constant state of war. They make end-runs around the Geneva Conventions, and then they try to enact laws that make their actions legal.

(All I have to say is...I hope that this Administration has no plans to travel to anywhere but Saudi Arabia, after 2009. They might get arrested for being war-criminals. :uch: )

Now, you might suggest that suicide bombers and shelling civilians is a terrible thing, and I would completely agree.

But please, let's have a sense of balance, in pointing the fingers at decrying terrorists. Our "client state" just rolled over a whole country, just to get at a group of militants whose prestige only grew, from the exchange.

The US is sitting back and hemming and hawing, as Israel continually violates the ceasefire. Meanwhile, Iran funnels out relief aid via Hezbollah.

Now, who's the bigger terrorists?

Why aren't more people taking to the streets to protest the hijacking of Islam, in addition to the cartoons depicting Mohammed? Fear of retribution, perhaps?

Maybe...that's my guess.

And you're leaving again?! :D

Yeah. Seemed like a quiet (sort of, in terms of disasters and anything else besides W posturing) week for news. Phew.

Mike Sigman
09-06-2006, 03:15 PM
IPursuing this crime as a police action, instead of a military action, might have achieved an end-result. Gee, that's exactly what Bill Clinton did. Sure did stop 'em, didn't it? Not to mention that as a "criminal action", we could never have gone into Afghanistan, could we? This is why I like "radicals".... they never really think very deeply, but they always have "simple solutions". ;)

Mike

Neil Mick
09-15-2006, 12:06 AM
how can you tell the good guys, from the bad? Certainly, the "bad" guys call themselves "good." So, how do we know who the "good guys" are?

Some ppl confuse this idea, that we cannot distinguish the good guys from the bad, with moral relativism. These ppl seem to misunderstand what moral relativism, is.

Every single military aggressor in history and on the planet claims to work on the side of "good." Often, their claims are preceeded by boasts that "God" is on their side, as well.

So, how do we know who's "good?" Imagine an Aikido class, where everyone is on the same moral footing. Who's the "bad" guy, here? The one who fails to follow etiquette.

It's the same thing, with countries. The "bad" guys are those who fail to respect civilian life, fail to honor international law. Moral relativism comes in when one of the military powers starts rationalizing their slip into lawlessness, with necessity (the "time-bomb and the terrorist" is a good example of this rationalization, for torture. In the end, its a slippery slope).

A recent news-item (http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/09/12/ap3011440.html) came up that dovetailed well into this comment:

Iran, Syria, North Korea and more than 100 other nations are pushing to broaden the world's definition of "terrorism" to include the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Converging on Fidel Castro's communist Cuba for a summit this week, members of the Nonaligned Movement complain of a double standard: powerful nations like the United States and Israel decide for the world who the terrorists are, but face no punishment for their own acts of aggression.

A draft of the group's joint declaration condemns "terrorism in all its forms," especially violence that targets civilians.

Terrorism should not be associated with any religion or nationality, says the draft. It singles out a favored phrase of President Bush in declaring that member countries "totally reject the use of the term 'axis of evil' by a certain state to target other states under the pretext of combating terrorism."

A Cuban official said sarcastically on Tuesday that the U.S. could one day accuse the entire Nonaligned Movement of supporting terrorism.

"Reading some news reports ... I'm left to believe that the axis of evil is growing," said Abelardo Moreno, Cuba's vice foreign minister. "Soon, the (axis of evil) will be made up of 118 countries."

Best of luck, to their efforts to more clearly define terrorism.

Guilty Spark
09-15-2006, 10:17 AM
That word is getting thrown around way too much. I'm reminded of Bush's speachs where he keeps talking about evil and terrorisim, sounds like his intended audience are elementry schools.

Few days back a Canadian political party suggested that Canadians in Afghanistan were acting like terrorists. Considering the sacrifices that are being made and the 30 some Canadian soldiers who aren't comming home, the comments really blew up in the NDPs face.

I don't like that word being the new catch word at all, takes away from the seriousness of it.

Mike Sigman
09-15-2006, 10:29 AM
What is truly interesting to me is how "Bush" is the constant target of so many while there are so many other interesting things that are really scarey. For instance, notice the complete silence of people in "most countries" (i.e., we're talking "world opinion") about Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon and openly saying they want to obliterate Israel. If Iran was trying to get a nuclear weapon and publicly declaring they were going to "obliterate France", I think this would be the most focused topic on the planet. As it is, "hate Bush" seems to be the focus of liberals and most of the news media. It's probably OK if Iran is only threatening to exterminate the Jews, in the opinion of most liberals and all Arabs. ;)

Mike

KarateCowboy
09-15-2006, 01:15 PM
Bush is . . .
A scapegoat. It seems foreigners have caught a case of "Bush killed my dog" syndrome.

Neil Mick
09-15-2006, 01:42 PM
Bush is . . .
A scapegoat. It seems foreigners have caught a case of "Bush killed my dog" syndrome.

Considering the effect of that dog on the world...I'd say that it's fair to cast a little critique to the big mongrel, who seems to use his canines, overmuch (see Fallujah, et al).

Neil Mick
09-15-2006, 01:44 PM
I don't like that word being the new catch word at all, takes away from the seriousness of it.

But, it's easy to document the US actions that would amount to terror, if the "other side" were doing it.

So, why not call it like they see it? Terror is terror: whether in, or out, of uniform.

Mike Sigman
09-15-2006, 02:09 PM
But, it's easy to document the US actions that would amount to terror, if the "other side" were doing it. Sure..... Hitler was a murderer, but so were the countries that killed Germans in an effort to stop Hitler. Ergo, there WAS no "Hitler".... everyone is a Hitler and George W. Bush is the worst one because he's an American.

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
09-15-2006, 07:00 PM
Just saw this fine 4min blurb on how America defeated itself, by marching into Iraq:

The Best War Ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qGAqA-muYU)

Guilty Spark
09-16-2006, 08:30 AM
Too late to evoke godwins law?

Neil I'm just saying we're using the word SO much that it's becomming old. Everyone is a terrorist bla bla bla evil evil evil its okay to tap phone lines because terrorists want to hurt you etc..

I just find it too convienient.

(Sorry for the grammar, spell check isn't working).

I've read a few interesting aricles on how every day Iraqi citizens are getting fed up with the US being there so their fighting against the US. Are they freedom fighters or terrorists?

Mike Sigman
09-16-2006, 10:13 AM
I've read a few interesting aricles on how every day Iraqi citizens are getting fed up with the US being there so their fighting against the US. Are they freedom fighters or terrorists?It gets a little silly. If some "freedom fighter" from Idaho decides (there's the key... these are all personal judgement decisions) that Neil is a traitor to the US (not a hard conclusion to reach, reading Neil's posts) and shoots him, is the guy really a "freedom fighter" or a murderer? Of course, you'd say "murderer", and so would I. But in Neil's world he wants to leave it open that murder can be OK and an act of "freedom fighting".... shouldn't Neil have to understand that ultimately that puts him and his family at risk, too?

Mike

Neil Mick
09-16-2006, 11:32 AM
Too late to evoke godwins law?

I'm wondering where, in any of my posts, I mentioned Hitler or WW2. Otherwise, Godwin's Rule does not apply, here.

Neil I'm just saying we're using the word SO much that it's becomming old. Everyone is a terrorist bla bla bla evil evil evil its okay to tap phone lines because terrorists want to hurt you etc..

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? I mean, WHO declared the "War on Terror...?" (hint: check the forum thread title)

Consider this new Warner, McCain and Graham bill (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/41691) coming thru Congress:

And it makes this paragraph from the Detainee Treatment Act applicable to any prosecution for war crimes involving violations of Common Article 3 after 9/11/2001:

"In any civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States Government who is a United States person, arising out of the officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent's engaging in specific operational practices, that involve detention and interrogation of aliens who the President or his designees have determined are believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity that poses a serious, continuing threat to the United States, its interests, or its allies, and that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time that they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful."

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings adds that this means: "if the government's lawyers said it was legal, and if a normal person would not have known that it wasn't legal, then the government and its agents can't be prosecuted for it."

You might be sick of how ppl toss the word around (as am I): but the word is still being used to put lots of ppl in jail, facing torture (at least, until W gets to call it something else).

I've read a few interesting aricles on how every day Iraqi citizens are getting fed up with the US being there so their fighting against the US. Are they freedom fighters or terrorists?

Depends upon whom you ask. Ask the US gov't: and you know the answer. Ask a non-combatant Iraqi, and the answer is more varied, and nuanced.

deepsoup
09-16-2006, 01:30 PM
decides (there's the key... these are all personal judgement decisions) that Neil is a traitor to the US (not a hard conclusion to reach, reading Neil's posts)

Funny, I thought freedom of expression was important to you merkins. Or does that only apply to people who agree with the current administration?

Mike Sigman
09-16-2006, 01:57 PM
Funny, I thought freedom of expression was important to you merkins. Or does that only apply to people who agree with the current administration?It is important.... I should be able to call someone what he is and I just did. Just because there is "freedom of speech" doesn't mean that there are no nutcases, Sean.

May god be with you in your noble quest to find a clue.


Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
09-16-2006, 03:53 PM
that Neil is a traitor to the US (not a hard conclusion to reach, reading Neil's posts)

:rolleyes:

Thank you again, Jun: for installing the ignore feature. Your foresightful software precludes my having to see (or respond to) the vitriol of endless personal, and ad hominem, attacks (mostly meant, of course, to derail the conversation. Next).

Thanks again. :cool:

Mike Sigman
09-16-2006, 04:59 PM
....my having to see (or respond to) the vitriol of endless personal, and ad hominem, attacks This from the guy who makes endless personal attacks against the Jews, George Bush, and anyone he doesn't agree with???? What thin, one-way skin Neil has. :rolleyes:

Mike

Neil Mick
09-23-2006, 03:53 AM
Bush is...Jesus?? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co1_9lR9EpM) :eek:

(be afraid...be very afraid)

Neil Mick
09-27-2006, 09:57 PM
Bush is...Jesus?? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co1_9lR9EpM) :eek:

(be afraid...be very afraid)

You KNOW that ppl have become too blase about Bush when they have nothing to say about his being promoted to JESUShood...!! :eek: :eek:

David Orange
09-27-2006, 10:13 PM
You KNOW that ppl have become too blase about Bush when they have nothing to say about his being promoted to JESUShood...!! :eek: :eek:

Maybe he's really the Madhi.

David

James Davis
09-28-2006, 10:58 AM
You KNOW that ppl have become too blase about Bush when they have nothing to say about his being promoted to JESUShood...!! :eek: :eek:
My workplace's security settings don't allow me to watch streaming video, hence my reticence. What's the video all about?

mriehle
09-28-2006, 11:32 AM
Bush is...Jesus?? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co1_9lR9EpM) :eek:

(be afraid...be very afraid)

:eek: indeed.

Regardless of how you feel about Bush, this video should alarm you.

Neil Mick
09-28-2006, 11:41 AM
The video is about an extremist Bible camp. This, from the Pastor running it:

"I want to see them (kids) as radically down their lives down for the gospel, as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine and all those different places."

The kids also worship under pictures of Bush.

Thus, Bush = Jesus :hypno:

Luc X Saroufim
09-28-2006, 12:37 PM
Bush is making me think twice about having a native-born President. i don't like his foreign policy very much, but that's not what i want to argue about.

it just seems like he doesn't understand the people or culture very well overseas. in the end, it doesn't matter, because his cabinet does. but that just makes Bush a puppet.

i would like to see the leader of the "free" world (excuse the quotes, freedom is relative) born somewhere else. when sentimentality is spread across the board, maybe we can reach true globalization.

edit: if you think about it, most US policy that is a subject of debate is indeed foreign. I think this War on Terror has grossly neglected the US's very own citizens.

James Davis
09-28-2006, 04:30 PM
The video is about an extremist Bible camp.
What makes them extreme? Is there more religious zeal than some think is appropriate, or are they stocking up on firearms?

The kids also worship under pictures of Bush.
Are they worshipping Bush, or do they just happen to have pictures on the wall? Do they think he's the second coming?

Thus, Bush = Jesus :hypno:
I'm not seeing the connection, but then I can't watch the video. Oh well. Something else ridiculing Bush, or christians, or both should be coming along the pike any minute now...

<sigh> I guess I am blase.

Neil Mick
09-28-2006, 10:12 PM
What makes them extreme? Is there more religious zeal than some think is appropriate, or are they stocking up on firearms?

Anyone who runs a camp where they wish to be as "radical as those guys in Palestine," are, by definition, extremist.


Are they worshipping Bush, or do they just happen to have pictures on the wall? Do they think he's the second coming?


I'm not seeing the connection, but then I can't watch the video. Oh well. Something else ridiculing Bush, or christians, or both should be coming along the pike any minute now...

I guess I am blase.

Really, James: go to an internet cafe after work and watch the video. Maybe you'll see what I mean.

Neil Mick
09-28-2006, 10:17 PM
Bush is making me think twice about having a native-born President. i don't like his foreign policy very much, but that's not what i want to argue about.

it just seems like he doesn't understand the people or culture very well overseas. in the end, it doesn't matter, because his cabinet does. but that just makes Bush a puppet.

i would like to see the leader of the "free" world (excuse the quotes, freedom is relative) born somewhere else. when sentimentality is spread across the board, maybe we can reach true globalization.

Personally, I think that everyone in the world ought to get a vote during the US elections. If it's a superpower: that means that everyone is affected.

Now THAT would be a "true" democracy!

edit: if you think about it, most US policy that is a subject of debate is indeed foreign. I think this War on Terror has grossly neglected the US's very own citizens.

Yes, agreed: and I don't have to think too hard about it. In fact, I can easily find out how much the "front-line of the war on terror" is costing us:

The Cost of War (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182) in Iraq

RampantWolf
09-29-2006, 03:14 AM
Personally, I think that everyone in the world ought to get a vote during the US elections. If it's a superpower: that means that everyone is affected.

Now THAT would be a "true" democracy!


I skipped a lot of the posts so forgive me if this has been said before.

I think the problem is that the US doesn't have compulsory voting. In Australia if you are over 18 and don't vote you get fined... not a big deal really but it means about 90% of the adult population actually votes in elections... As far as I'm concerned if you don't vote you lose your right to whine about the elected head of government. At least if you've put your mark on the card and the other guy gets in you have the luxury of saying 'Well I didn't vote for him' :)

P.S. Wasn't singling you out there Neil... was just your post that brough it to my mind :D

Steve Mullen
09-29-2006, 04:41 AM
"Bush is the worst one because he's an American."

How so Mike? just thought id check before i commented incase i have missed your point.

Hogan
09-29-2006, 09:04 AM
Personally, I think that everyone in the world ought to get a vote during the US elections. If it's a superpower: that means that everyone is affected.

Now THAT would be a "true" democracy!...

Does everyone then get to pay taxes to us, too?

Hogan
09-29-2006, 09:14 AM
I skipped a lot of the posts so forgive me if this has been said before.

I think the problem is that the US doesn't have compulsory voting. In Australia if you are over 18 and don't vote you get fined... not a big deal really but it means about 90% of the adult population actually votes in elections... As far as I'm concerned if you don't vote you lose your right to whine about the elected head of government. At least if you've put your mark on the card and the other guy gets in you have the luxury of saying 'Well I didn't vote for him' :)

P.S. Wasn't singling you out there Neil... was just your post that brough it to my mind :D

Our constitution was created to protect its citizens from the dangers of government, and a government ordering its citizens to vote is no worse than the communist / dictatorships / non-democracy's throughout the world. And complaining about our government when we don't vote is called free speech. Besides, don't you think making people vote will give a false sense of mandate to politicians? If I like neither of the candidates running, why bother giving them anything? I personally like it when a politician says, "I have a mandate" when only about 10% of the people turn out - makes me laugh.

RampantWolf
09-29-2006, 09:47 AM
Free speech is great and it is well within your right to complain about your elected head of government, but in my opinion (and I really don't know much about politcal systems so it carries not one iota of any weight) there's something wrong with a system that can get someone elected by the majority vote because half of them didn't vote. Especially in a nation as powerful as the US whose policies will and do affect the rest of the world.

Maybe it's because it works a lot differently in Oz, we don't vote directly for the Prime Minister, we elect local representatives to the federal council and the leader of the party with the majority of seats becomes the Prime Minister. There a lot more parties/people to vote for so you can usually find someone whose agenda you mostly agree with. Because the 2 major parties are farily well matched it means that they really do have to cater to the smaller parties and independents, because 1 or 2 of the representatives voting against you can squash whatever you were trying to do... gives the people a lot more power to affect the government.

Hogan
09-29-2006, 11:03 AM
...Maybe it's because it works a lot differently in Oz, we don't vote directly for the Prime Minister, we elect local representatives to the federal council and the leader of the party with the majority of seats becomes the Prime Minister. There a lot more parties/people to vote for so you can usually find someone whose agenda you mostly agree with. Because the 2 major parties are farily well matched it means that they really do have to cater to the smaller parties and independents, because 1 or 2 of the representatives voting against you can squash whatever you were trying to do... gives the people a lot more power to affect the government.

We don't directly vote for the Prez, either. We vote for electors, who then votes for Prez. And at the beginning, our Senators were not elected by direct vote either - not until the early 1900's...

http://www.historicaldocuments.com/17thAmendment.htm

But with your system and the UK's, etc, you can have people in there as PM every other week - doesn't seem to do much for consistency. Using the will of the people to have different PM's or leaders every other whatever can create chaos & instability, and politicos creating legislation to just please the masses rather than what's good for the country in the long run, and that isn't always the best.

James Davis
09-29-2006, 11:33 AM
Anyone who runs a camp where they wish to be as "radical as those guys in Palestine," are, by definition, extremist.
I think that depends on which "guys in Palestine" we're talking about.



Really, James: go to an internet cafe after work and watch the video. Maybe you'll see what I mean.
No, thanks. I teach aikido in the afternoons, and I don't make it home until about ten o'clock. Three o'clock this morning was the first time that I got to see my four month old daughter awake this week! :(

Sacrifice and priorities... what a miserable way to live! :D

David Orange
09-29-2006, 01:00 PM
Are they worshipping Bush, or do they just happen to have pictures on the wall? Do they think he's the second coming?

They have the kids praying in front of a big American flag with a huge "cutout" of GW in front of the flag. Doesn't look good.

I'm not seeing the connection, but then I can't watch the video. Oh well. Something else ridiculing Bush, or christians, or both should be coming along the pike any minute now....

If you want to talk about it, you should watch it. But with this kind of "Christianity," no one else has to ridicule it. They do a great job of it, themselves.

I'm Christian and pro-Israel, but I think Bush is and has been a disaster for the United States and I think the kind of "Christianity" shown in that video is a prime example of a "hijacking" of Christianity by right-wingers whom Jesus would thump into the lake of fire without even speaking to them.

There was a similar thing in 1980, when Reagan was running for Prez. There was a huge Christian build-up for The Second Coming, which got more intense day after day as we neared the election. Then, BOOM, when Reagan was elected, all that Second Coming frenzy just basically disappeared.

This is another example of the Right Wing pulling a Bait'n'Switch on Christian-oriented people.

David

Neil Mick
10-01-2006, 05:38 PM
Bush is...Emperor, now that he can detain and secretly jail any non-US citizen, anywhere in the world, without a due trial. See my thread on the loss of Habeas Corpus, here. (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=154844#post154844)

Taliesin
10-10-2006, 08:27 AM
Hi Guy's - just back from a glorious holiday and thought that SOME of you might like the following letter published today in one of our national newspapers. Enjoy (or not!!!)


Dear President Bush,

I write to you in my capacity as secretary of the World League of Despots.

It is with great pleasure that I am finally able to extend an official invitation to you to join our ranks. For many years, we have watched your efforts to fulfil the requirements necessary to join our number. From the start, we were greatly impressed by your disdain for democratic principles - the way you wrested power from the democratically elected candidate in the 2000 election, and again in 2005 when you managed to swing what was clearly going to be a victory for your opponent.

Contempt for human life has always been a priority requirement for membership of the league, and I and my fellow adjudicators were well aware of your record as governor of Texas when you quadrupled the number of state executions. But your record since seizing power has surpassed even our expectations. The thousands of innocent people in Iraq, who have died so that you could fulfil your declared political objective of establishing "an American force presence in the Middle East", attest to your eligibility to join our ranks.

I cannot, however, disguise the fact that we adjudicators were extremely anxious when you announced your intention to remove from office one of our most stalwart members, Mr Saddam Hussein. However, we need not have worried. According to a recent UN report, you have ensured that there are now even more human rights abuses in Iraq than there were under Saddam. No less than 10% of those in custody are being physically or psychologically abused. Well done!

Of course, your unstinting efforts to make torture an internationally accepted aspect of human life have surpassed everything we could have ever hoped for. I don't think there is a single member of the league who could have imagined, six short years ago, that our activities in tormenting our fellow creatures would once again be recognised as acceptable, civilised behaviour, as it once was in the middle ages.

Despite these achievements, we had, until now, felt unable to extend our invitation to you because you had been unable to fulfil one of our basic requirements: the ability to carry out arbitrary arrests, imprisonment without trial, secret torture and executions at will.

We approved of your attempts to establish the principles of arbitrary arrest under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, but unfortunately it was still restricted to terror suspects. We appreciate that you were hampered by the US constitution, but the restrictions this imposed on your arbitrary powers kept you below the threshold requirements for qualification as a despot.

Now, however, all that has changed. At the end of last month you persuaded the Senate to pass a bill regarding the treatment of detainees. Illegally obtained evidence can now be used against suspects, even if it has been gathered abroad under torture. Anyone you care to accuse can be thrown into prison without the right to a trial or the right to represent themselves.

Officially the legislation is restricted to "enemy combatants", but you have skilfully adapted this definition to include anyone who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the US". This presumably means that anyone who publicly criticises your conduct can be defined as supporting hostilities to the US. You are now free to arrest and imprison anyone you don't like. You've got it in the bag!

It is with great pleasure that we in the World League of Despots note that you have now appropriated to yourself all the powers of arbitrary arrest and torture that Saddam once enjoyed. You are now one of us. Congratulations!

Mike Sigman
10-10-2006, 08:57 AM
Hi Guy's - just back from a glorious holiday and thought that SOME of you might like the following letter published today in one of our national newspapers. Enjoy (or not!!!)
It sounds a lot like it was written by a college freshman who also thinks he knows enough to be a political activist and a wit.

Ah... thought it was too long to be a "letter". It's an article by Sweet Arse Terry Jones in the Guardian.... which is several clicks to the Left of the New York Times.

Funny how David spends all his time worrying about the US instead of the constant cockups in Europe. Well done on Bosnia! Good job on your "diplomatic solution" to Iran. I'm sure Europe will dodderingly lead us, as they've done twice in the last century, back into another world war because they can never handle anything. Only talk about it.

Mike

Taliesin
10-10-2006, 10:26 AM
Hi Mike

Did you miss me - cause you sure replied fast.

I must admit I was amused by your conclusion that you think I spend all my

"time worrying about the US instead of the constant cockups in Europe".

I take it you missed the bit in my post where I stated that I was

"just back from a glorious holiday ".

Still it's not quite a funny as your weird belief that Europe will lead you "back into another world war".

Leaving aside the fact that it's your President that's doing a great job of dragging everyone else in the world into his war (the war to promote terrorism), I also think that perhaps the bombing of Pearl Harbour might have had something to do with the USA's entry into WWII (just a guess).

BTW how do you think we did in Kosovo?

Still maybe next time your thread will show some signs of intellegence.

Mike Sigman
10-10-2006, 11:01 AM
Still maybe next time your thread will show some signs of intellegence.I think that pretty much says it all, David.

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
10-10-2006, 11:55 PM
Hi Guy's - just back from a glorious holiday

Welcome back, David. Glad to hear your holiday went well.


Dear President Bush,

You are now one of us. Congratulations!

(from the movie Freaks (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022913/)): "One of us! One of us! Glooby-glaaby, one of us! One of us!" :D

Luc X Saroufim
10-11-2006, 09:24 AM
i'm a car enthusiast, so forgive the analogy.

the best car seats are the ones you don't notice. when you're going around a corner, at the brink of losing grip, you want your seat to be firm enough to keep you in place so you can concentrate on the important things.

on a long distance trip, you also want your seat to be supportive and comfortable, so you don't notice the pain on your backside.

if you've ever slid around in your seat, or complained of a numb arse when getting out of a car, you have noticed the seat, and it's not good enough.

the reason why i think Bush is a terrible President is not based on my opinion of his policy; my opinion is just one of many, and worthless in the grand scheme of things.

he's a terrible President because he has managed to polarize the entire nation. he's hardly gone unnoticed. you either love the guy, and everything he stands for, or you think he's the worst thing that has ever happened to the US. there is absolutely no middle ground for this man.

a great leader unites his people. to all the people that support Bush: he has managed to win *your* support, but there are hundreds of millions of Americans that aren't convinced, and are very pissed off. to me, that's not good enough. we can't unite on *anything* anymore:

the situation in the Middle East, our reaction to 9/11, Habeus Corpus, Iran, immigration reform, you name it, and Bush just manages to divide the country in half.

if there's one good thing that came from Bush's election, it's the fact that we are now exposed as a divided nation. it is his job to unite us, and he's failed.

James Davis
10-11-2006, 11:37 AM
the reason why i think Bush is a terrible President is not based on my opinion of his policy; my opinion is just one of many, and worthless in the grand scheme of things.

he's a terrible President because he has managed to polarize the entire nation. he's hardly gone unnoticed. you either love the guy, and everything he stands for, or you think he's the worst thing that has ever happened to the US. there is absolutely no middle ground for this man.
I like him because he's not ashamed to say he's a christian.

I don't like hime because he declares war on terror without bothering to secure our borders. :crazy:

I like him because he lets us keep a little more of the money we earn, and (surprise!) it gets spent, making our economy better.

I don't like him because he supports the death penalty.




a great leader unites his people. to all the people that support Bush: he has managed to win *your* support, but there are hundreds of millions of Americans that aren't convinced, and are very pissed off. to me, that's not good enough. we can't unite on *anything* anymore:
He hasn't necessarily won my support, I just didn't think that the alternative candidate was any good.


the situation in the Middle East, our reaction to 9/11, Habeus Corpus, Iran, immigration reform, you name it, and Bush just manages to divide the country in half.
I think quite a bit of that is due simply to party loyalty (however silly that may be).


if there's one good thing that came from Bush's election, it's the fact that we are now exposed as a divided nation. it is his job to unite us, and he's failed.
There are some that believe the government is a hurdle.

There are some that believe the government is their salvation.

There is nobody out there that can please everyone.

Luc X Saroufim
10-11-2006, 12:07 PM
He hasn't necessarily won my support, I just didn't think that the alternative candidate was any good.

I just mean that the majority of the nation, and Congress, seems to back him up; which would be a strong symbol of unity, except that there are many people that are very upset, some even ashamed, of how our country is doing business. these are two extremes; nobody seems "indifferent" to Bush when you ask them about him.




There are some that believe the government is a hurdle.

There are some that believe the government is their salvation.

There is nobody out there that can please everyone.

that is all true, but a President should display good leadership qualities. he represents who we chose to be our leader, he is the leader of our very powerful army, and he's the face of the nation.

some people think that he is violating our rights, and taking away some freedoms; that is dangerous territory because that is our pride and joy in the US. he is playing with fire.

Hogan
10-11-2006, 12:14 PM
...the reason why i think Bush is a terrible President is not based on my opinion of his policy...he's a terrible President because he has managed to polarize the entire nation. he's hardly gone unnoticed. you either love the guy, and everything he stands for, or you think he's the worst thing that has ever happened to the US. there is absolutely no middle ground for this man.

the situation ... Habeus Corpus, ... you name it, and Bush just manages to divide the country in half.....

You must think Lincoln was the worst, with his dividing the country in the Civil War and the suspension of Habeus Corpus & all...

So, to be a great pres, you need everyone to either like you or hate you? Just so people are united??

Neil Mick
10-11-2006, 01:12 PM
I just mean that the majority of the nation, and Congress, seems to back him up;

Ok, wait a minute.

"The majority of the nation, back him up?" Bush's popularity hovers at around 30%. Legions of retired generals, ambassadors, and company-town types issue strong condemnations about his plans...heck: even his ex-Sec of State issues a thumbs-down over his new plan to ditch habeas...

I'd hardly call what Bush has, as "popular support." But sure, the collective morass of toadies we call "Congress" has been compliant, if not entirely willing, to lie down and let BushCo roll all over Congress, and our rights.

Bush's support is very narrow in American society. He might be popular in Crawford, Tx: but his continued support for a failed war is sinking his popularity like a stone. The one thing he has to rely upon is the united organization of the Right, his family connections, and his close ties to oil, and real estate.

all true, but a President should display good leadership qualities. he represents who we chose to be our leader, he is the leader of our very powerful army, and he's the face of the nation.

Yes..."face of the nation:" that's a good way of putting it. He is our outlook, upon the rest of the world. For all his faults, Clinton represented something brighter. Bush represents only fear.

:mad: (P.S. Notice? Unfortunately, I had to change the numbers on my sig. The damage of this illegal occupation continues apace) :(

Luc X Saroufim
10-11-2006, 02:53 PM
You must think Lincoln was the worst, with his dividing the country in the Civil War and the suspension of Habeus Corpus & all...

that it is irrelevant to the conversation because in the Civil War, we're not talking about just one leader. unless you think Calhoun, Jackson, and Lee weren't key players in dividing the nation.


So, to be a great pres, you need everyone to either like you or hate you? Just so people are united??

great leaders do not polarize their people. imagine having a boss that you really love; imagine the guy next to you can't stand him. is he a good boss?


as Neil is pointing out, Bush's popularity is very low, the jobs aren't getting done, and we're in the international spotlight, which makes us very exposed and vulnerable.

Luc X Saroufim
10-11-2006, 02:54 PM
Ok, wait a minute.

"The majority of the nation, back him up?"

yes. we elected him twice, and we elected the Senators that have backed him up.

Hogan
10-11-2006, 03:57 PM
that it is irrelevant to the conversation because in the Civil War, we're not talking about just one leader. unless you think Calhoun, Jackson, and Lee weren't key players in dividing the nation.

There was one president (Lincoln) - who should have "united" us, using your logic. We have many "leaders" who divide us today, too.


great leaders do not polarize their people. imagine having a boss that you really love; imagine the guy next to you can't stand him. is he a good boss?
What if 2 like him and 1 hates him? Does that mean he is a good boss if 67% of the people are united behind him?

So again, if we ALL hated him that means he is a good boss, if he didn't polarize? After all, 100% of the people are not polarized, they are united in their hate. IS that really the only std you have for the judgment of a good leader/boss? It's whether they unite people? That's a pretty low std, and pretty impossible to obtain - you are always going to have division.

as Neil is pointing out, Bush's popularity is very low, the jobs aren't getting done, and we're in the international spotlight, which makes us very exposed and vulnerable.

Lots o' presidents had low ratings that turned out to be great. History is the judge of that. Jobs aren't getting done? Depends on what jobs are important to you, doesn't it? And we are in the int'l spotlight? Um, we be the lone superpower, so we of COURSE are in the spotlight; when have we not been in the spotlight? You want us to hide in a cave?

Neil Mick
10-12-2006, 12:03 AM
that it is irrelevant to the conversation because in the Civil War, we're not talking about just one leader. unless you think Calhoun, Jackson, and Lee weren't key players in dividing the nation.

Oh, I dunno: John has a point. When we talk about Bush, we're not talking about just one leader, either...there's Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rice, et al.

And, there is some merit in comparing the threats to civil liberties, past and present.

However, the problem with comparing Lincoln to Bush is one of scale. Lincoln didn't illegally deter and torture thousands of people. He denied habeas, yes: but he rarely used it.

Lincoln also didn't throw the government into constitutional crisis, the way Bush is doing. He didn't use signing statements to make end runs around laws passed; he never (as far as I know) lied to American's to propel us into war.

yes. we elected him twice,

Both times under questionable circumstances; with hardly a "mandate" in either case. And, electing a man hardly qualifies as "backing him up:" more likely, the votes were votes of no confidence, for Kerry.

and we elected the Senators that have backed him up.

Yes, well...fear is a powerful motivator. I'm guessing that a lot of those Senators will pay the price for their backing a sinking ship, soon enough.

Taliesin
10-12-2006, 04:06 AM
To Luc

The evidence is that the American people DIDN'T ELECT HIM PRESIDENT.

deepsoup
10-12-2006, 07:42 AM
When we talk about Bush, we're not talking about just one leader, either...there's Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rice, et al.

On the subject of Rusfeld, here's some old news that seems to be relevant again:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342316/index.htm

Luc X Saroufim
10-12-2006, 08:09 AM
Come on guys,

Foreign nations, and US citizens, have labeled Bush a terrorist, have accused him of cheating the elections, have accused him of taking our liberties, and even Venezuala's leaders have called him "The Devil" out in the open.

then, you have US Citizens and nations across the world that truly believe in his cause, because he's a devout Catholic, because he's protecting the free world, and because he wants to liberate the oppressed.

these are two extremes. on one hand, people think he's the Devil, on the other hand, people think he's Jesus. this is what i mean by polarization.

do you remember Lincoln being called "Devil" *AND* a protector of the free world?

i think i have a point.

and i'm sorry folks, if he's gonna be our President for 8 years, there is no one to blame but the voters. it's not Kerry's fault you wanted to vote for a trigger happy cowboy.

Hogan
10-12-2006, 08:58 AM
Come on guys,...do you remember Lincoln being called "Devil" *AND* a protector of the free world?

i think i have a point.....

I think you don't...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo57.html

(I am not pursuaded on the point of the article, but various quotes contained therein show just how the "great" Lincoln governed)

..."Lincoln’s policy was to have treasonous federal lawmakers arrested and tried before military tribunals, and exiled or hanged if convicted," Waller announces. He quotes Lincoln as saying that "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs who should be arrested, exiled or hanged." Lincoln "spoke forcefully of the need to arrest, convict and, if necessary, execute congressmen who by word or deed undermined the war effort."...

..."Of course, Lincoln defined a "saboteur" as virtually anyone who disagreed with his politics and policies and subsequently ordered the military to arrest literally tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of opposition newspaper editors."

..."Exhibit A in the neocon case for imprisoning political opponents is Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, who was forcefully taken from his Dayton, Ohio home in the middle of the night by 67 armed federal soldiers, thrown into a military prison without due process, convicted by a military tribunal, and deported."

..."Vallandigham was appalled and outraged at Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and his arrest of thousands of Northern political opponents; the trial of civilians by military tribunals even though the civil courts were operating; arbitrary arrests without warrants or charges; military edicts that prohibited criticism of the Lincoln administration; the arrest of all of the editors of opposition newspapers in Ohio; and the mobbing and demolition of opposition newspapers by Republican Party activists or federal soldiers."

Or how about:

"President Lincoln threw people in jail without charges during the Civil War, including members of the Maryland legislature and at least one former member of Congress from Ohio. Franklin Roosevelt moved 112,000 Japanese Americans out of their homes and held them in internment camps during World War II. They had support at the time but would be considered "abuses" by most today. In 1988 Congress declared that the WWII internments constituted "fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights" of citizens. The wartime measures of Lincoln and FDR were far more serious that warrantless eavesdropping on overseas conversations."

Or:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl834.cfm

There is more... You REALLY think we have it bad now??

With respect to foreign leaders opinions of the US Pres - who gives a flying 'f'... seriously....

And if you think Lincoln wasn't called the 'devil' & loved at the same time, then you haven't done any research.

James Davis
10-12-2006, 11:18 AM
and i'm sorry folks, if he's gonna be our President for 8 years, there is no one to blame but the voters. it's not Kerry's fault you wanted to vote for a trigger happy cowboy.
Kerry was trigger happy...

before he voted against it. :D

James Davis
10-12-2006, 11:44 AM
Both times under questionable circumstances; with hardly a "mandate" in either case.

Not a mandate at all. How many people actually voted? It's depressing to see the turnout at our elections. :disgust:


And, electing a man hardly qualifies as "backing him up:" more likely, the votes were votes of no confidence, for Kerry.



I've heard Bush accused of "swaggering" in the past. The only swaggering I witnessed was during a debate when I saw Al Gore walk out from behind his podium and saunter over to Bush's. He was trying to intimidate Bush, and succeeded in making himself look like an ass (not for the first time).

There is no Social Security lockbox, regardless of what Al told us. I think that it's a decent idea, but Al had no intention of creating one. :mad:

Whether or not the election in 2000 was stolen, Al Gore convinced me to vote for Bush.

And then there's Kerry...

the guy who picked up a shotgun to try and convince us that he was a hunter and that our second amendment right was safe. The guy that was for and against everything. :rolleyes:

Oh, I almost forgot! He served in Vietnam. Wouldn't want anybody to forget; I don't think he's mentioned it in the past few hours.

Show me a candidate who really is trying to unite the people instead of pointing fingers, and I might just vote Democrat. All I've seen so far is mudslinging and candidates trying to convince me that they're something that they're not.

All of the government programs they can come up with mean nothing when we have no right to police protection. None. We alone are responsible for our families' defense. We have Clinton's administration banning firearms with black stocks because they look scary, while the same firearm with a wooden stock remains legal! Idiots!! :grr: :disgust: These people were in control of our country?!! From what I've seen, I'm convinced that the Democratic party wants me to be dependent on the government for the safety of my family, while legal precedents make it an impossibilty. No thanks.

Luc X Saroufim
10-12-2006, 12:42 PM
you haven't done any research.

you're right, for two reasons:

1) I didn't introduce Lincoln into my argument, somebody else did.

2) Lincoln is irrelevant to my argument.

i will just say this: Bush, and everybody who has led their country in similar ways, do not make good leaders because they polarize their people.

Bush exploits the majority. if the majority of the nation comprises of self-righteous Christians, then he will go on the record and say that he's a devout Catholic.

my proof? in the last election, every single republican state voted for Bush.

in tennis, that's like losing every game you don't serve.

and in my mind, that's polarization.

Hogan
10-12-2006, 12:56 PM
...Bush, and everybody who has led their country in similar ways, do not make good leaders because they polarize their people.

And my responses were to point out to you leaders who have polarized, yet were considered "great", to point out you have not really done research to prove your claim, or at least provide there are exceptions to your "proof".

Bush exploits the majority. if the majority of the nation comprises of self-righteous Christians, then he will go on the record and say that he's a devout Catholic.
Christianity & catholism are different.

my proof? in the last election, every single republican state voted for Bush.
Huh? Well, most democratic states vote for the democrat, and most republican states vote for the republican. So?

Let me ask you this - Since 49 out of 50 states voted for Reagan during his re-election, do you consider Reagan to have been a great president and someone who had not caused polarization?

Neil Mick
10-12-2006, 01:09 PM
Come on guys,

Foreign nations, and US citizens, have labeled Bush a terrorist, have accused him of cheating the elections, have accused him of taking our liberties, and even Venezuala's leaders have called him "The Devil" out in the open.

then, you have US Citizens and nations across the world that truly believe in his cause, because he's a devout Catholic, because he's protecting the free world, and because he wants to liberate the oppressed.

(Bush isn't Catholic, BTW)

these are two extremes. on one hand, people think he's the Devil, on the other hand, people think he's Jesus. this is what i mean by polarization.

do you remember Lincoln being called "Devil" *AND* a protector of the free world?

i think i have a point.

Yes, you do. Polarizing forces are not good for a nation.

and i'm sorry folks, if he's gonna be our President for 8 years, there is no one to blame but the voters.

To Luc

The evidence is that the American people DIDN'T ELECT HIM PRESIDENT.

There's more going on here, than a simple mandate from the electorate. The elections were rigged. True, Bush did get a bloc of voters: but you have to look at his platform. You can simply break it down into one word:

FEAR

Fear of terrorism; fear of gays. We ARE responsible for our leaders; and we have to answer for Bush's crimes. But, let's not go ascribing false mandates where they don't exist.

In fact, Bush doesn't have a "program," except for Neoliberal reform. Where's his strategy to fight the war on terror? To bring democracy to Iraq? To protect our natural resources, the Constitution?

Nonexistant, that's where. It's all show and spin.


it's not Kerry's fault you wanted to vote for a trigger happy cowboy.

No, it's not Kerry's fault that Bush was elected. It WAS Kerry's fault that he threw in the towel so soon; and it WAS Kerry's fault that he didn't provide a more definitive alternative to Bush (I like to call Kerry "Bush-lite").

I often ask, after some admit (somewhat shamefacedly) that they voted for Kerry, what did your candidate do for you? If they were honest: they'd admit that Kerry went back on his promise to "make every vote count."

MY candidate (David Cobb, Green Party) went to Ohio after the election and pushed for the recount.

Kerry's election-coffers had a good surplus (millions) that went untouched toward the recount effort. His lawyers were mostly silent on the issue.

In contrast to all the Kerry-voters: I'd say that I got the better deal.

Luc X Saroufim
10-12-2006, 01:34 PM
And my responses were to point out to you leaders who have polarized, yet were considered "great", to point out you have not really done research to prove your claim, or at least provide there are exceptions to your "proof"

all you're doing is disagreeing with me, and that's fine. i'm entitled to my opinion, though. i don't like leaders who some people hate, and others can't live without.

what research do i need to prove my claim? have you heard of Michael Moore and his many supporters? did you hear what the people in our Capitol did when Bush was re-elected? Not in my lifetime have i seen so much resentment towards a President.

yet at the same time, Bush still has die-hard followers. this is a huge contrast, which leads me to believe that as a nation, we are not united.


Huh? Well, most democratic states vote for the democrat, and most republican states vote for the republican. So?

right, most , but there are always exceptions, right? not in this case. it is an extreme outcome.

when i see an election turnout that's totally one-sided, where only Republicans feel like they're being represented, i see a divided nation.

Neil Mick
10-12-2006, 02:01 PM
Not a mandate at all. How many people actually voted? It's depressing to see the turnout at our elections. :disgust:

Perhaps they're discouraged from voting by the limits of choice, and by the Republican calls for voter-ID...

There is no Social Security lockbox, regardless of what Al told us. I think that it's a decent idea, but Al had no intention of creating one. :mad:

Beats all hell out of throwing SS to private accounts, IMO.

Whether or not the election in 2000 was stolen, Al Gore convinced me to vote for Bush.

What I want to know is...in 2000, how could you tell the difference (btw Gore and Bush)?

And then there's Kerry...

Oh, I almost forgot! He served in Vietnam. Wouldn't want anybody to forget; I don't think he's mentioned it in the past few hours.

At least he DID serve, instead of going AWOL. And, funny how his desertion seems to get shuffled under the charges of shoddy journalism (a la 60 Minutes), isn't it?

Show me a candidate who really is trying to unite the people instead of pointing fingers, and I might just vote Democrat.

OK...his name was David Cobb, and he's Green. Dunno how a Green candidate will convince you to vote Democrat, but there you are... :p

All I've seen so far is mudslinging and candidates trying to convince me that they're something that they're not.

You got that right.

All of the government programs they can come up with mean nothing when we have no right to police protection. None.

Police and military protection exist for one thing: to back the mandate of the State, with force. If the gov't does not want you to reside on a given piece of land: they come along with police, imminent domain laws and (ultimately) eviction notices to force you off.

From what I've seen, I'm convinced that the Democratic party wants me to be dependent on the government for the safety of my family, while legal precedents make it an impossibilty. No thanks.

From what I've seen: the Republican's would rather you not participate in government, at ALL.

Hogan
10-12-2006, 02:32 PM
...what research do i need to prove my claim? have you heard of Michael Moore and his many supporters?....

AHAHAHAH !!! That was good... Mikey Moore doing "research"... ahahahahheee...

You haven't answered my question re Reagan...

Hogan
10-12-2006, 02:35 PM
Perhaps they're discouraged from voting by the limits of choice, and by the Republican calls for voter-ID...
Yes, me must be able to vote without ID's. No proof of eligability required here, move along...

Mike Sigman
10-16-2006, 02:00 PM
Neil likes to stick the far-fetched "Lancet" "study" from some admitted anti-war partisans at Johns Hopkins into his sig:

Current Iraqi Civilian Casualties
MIN: 43850 MAX: 655,000+
"war on terror" = US occupation of countries
Prof's/Lect's Killed in Iraq, since 3/03: 300+


Neil ignores the fact that the sampling of the first study was so skewed that no one (except extreme Left Wingers) took the study seriously. Now Neil's sig includes the second study by the same group in the now shamefully discreditted "Lancet". However, the 650,000+ figure is so ludicrous that even the Far Left "Iraq Body Count" is distancing itself from the spurious figures:

Iraq Body Count Press Release 16 October 2006
Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates
Hamit Dardagan, John Sloboda, and Josh Dougherty
Summary
A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:

On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.
If these assertions are true, they further imply:

incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;
bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.
In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy.

I guess IBC didn't mind a few lies... but when the lies become so big that they hurt "The Cause", suddenly the truth has some value. The point is that people who use obvious lies to sway opinion and somehow think there is an ethos to that behaviour... strange indeed. ;)

Mike

James Davis
10-16-2006, 05:02 PM
Perhaps they're discouraged from voting by the limits of choice, and by the Republican calls for voter-ID...

I've registered to vote every time I've moved, and it's been easy every time.

I don't believe that citizens of Canada or Mexico should be able to decide the U.S.'s fate. I don't vote in their elections.

Beats all hell out of throwing SS to private accounts, IMO.
Based on life expectancy statistics, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should be the ones fighting for privatization. Our current Social Security program guarantees that funds never get to black families upon the death of their elders; the money goes straight to old white ladies.



OK...his name was David Cobb, and he's Green. Dunno how a Green candidate will convince you to vote Democrat, but there you are... :p

I could not deny a woman her right to abortion in cases of rape or incest, or if her life were in danger due to the pregnancy. I don't believe in the use of abortion as birth control, however.

Then there's gun control...



Police and military protection exist for one thing: to back the mandate of the State, with force. If the gov't does not want you to reside on a given piece of land: they come along with police, imminent domain laws and (ultimately) eviction notices to force you off.


Disarming the citizenry creates more potential for our government's standing army to be used as a tool for tyranny.

Guilty Spark
10-16-2006, 11:02 PM
I don't believe that citizens of Canada or Mexico should be able to decide the U.S.'s fate. I don't vote in their elections.

But the U.S. Decides the fate of many countries :)
What about Canadian-american citizens or Mexican american citizens living outside of the US. Should they be allowed to vote and decide the fate of the country? (honest question)

Disarming the citizenry creates more potential for our government's standing army to be used as a tool for tyranny.

I love guns and weapons. Like shooting them and collecting them. That said there are a lot of stupid people out there. Giving some of these idiots access to assault rifles, anti-tank rifles and the like is silly and in my opinion dangerous. No requirement for it for hunting and hobby shooting and collecting is pushing the limit I think.
People always make references to nazi germany and how their government made everyone register their weapons right before the war etc.. Have mixed feelings about that. Then the tyranny thing, the goverment taking guns away then turing on the people. Do some people in the US really think their government is capable of that? If so theirs a huge problem that needs to be adressed.

The whole right to bare arms thing, in my opinion, is a little out dated. Correct me if I'm wrong but that was brought into effect when the threat of british invasion from the north was a very real threat. Times change and some laws should change along with them.

hapkidoike
10-16-2006, 11:19 PM
But the U.S. Decides the fate of many countries :)

. . .

The whole right to bare arms thing, in my opinion, is a little out dated. Correct me if I'm wrong but that was brought into effect when the threat of british invasion from the north was a very real threat. Times change and some laws should change along with them.

Does that mean that free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, not being required to quarter troops (in times of peace), right against unreasonable search and seizure, not being tried for the same thing twice, speedy and public trials, etc and so on are out dated? I really do not think it is a good idea to start reexamining the constitution, especially when Bush and Co. (The New NeoCons inc.) are in office. Anyway what do you care, your a Canuck. Maybe you watched Canadian Bacon a few too many times.

I love my country, I fear my government.

Neil Mick
10-17-2006, 02:26 AM
a note to those not-so-hallowed members of my ignore-list, who seem to follow my posts with comments of their own (I guess...you're "ignored," after all, and I can't see 'em)...

Notice, how "brave" these guys are? They're so eager to rebut from behind the safety of the ignore curtain: but none too eager to debate, directly.

Well fellas: I'll make it simple, so that you can stop with your incessant trolling: just drop me a note, stating that you'll agree to stop the insults. In return, you get off my list.

But, I'm betting that you won't do this, as it's far safer to employ childish insult, than to debate openly, without insult, like adults.

Well? My Inbox awaits. But don't worry: I won't be holding my breath...

Guilty Spark
10-17-2006, 03:21 AM
Hey Isaac,
Does that mean that free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, not being required to quarter troops (in times of peace), right against unreasonable search and seizure, not being tried for the same thing twice, speedy and public trials, etc and so on are out dated?

Nope not at all, why would you even suggest that? I'm suggesting that the law (or act, whatever) was brought about due to threat of British invasion from the north. Canada and the US are on pretty good terms now, I'm suggesting maybe the law is out dated. MAYBE citizens shouldn't have access to assault rifles, machineguns and anti tank weapons. Do a search on waco texax and you'll find a good example. I'm not saying don't allow citizens to have firearms, I'm saying make the laws smarter and stricter. Increase punishments for people who use weapons in violent crimes etc..

There are TONS of silly laws still "on the books" all over the US. Should we start enforcing these laws? Stoning people who work on sunday? Burning a woman if she's put in salt water and doesn't float? No walking dogs on saturdays? No "rock and roll" on certain days of the week?
I can't even scratch the surface of all the stupid laws still on the books which are left overs from a more simpler time. Do a search, you might be surprised and amused at what you find. I heard somewhere that the guys who wrote the constitution made it possible to change it because they knew as times change, so should/could the laws. Shame on you for trying to twist my words around like that.

I really do not think it is a good idea to start reexamining the constitution, especially when Bush and Co. (The New NeoCons inc.) are in office.

I understand your point of view in this specific case and agree with you to an extent. While it may be a good thing to take a look at the laws BUT I can really appriciate how many people, especially considering recent events and actions, would be nervous by the US President changing the laws around. Something like this should fall on the shoulders of more than one person.

Anyway what do you care, your a Canuck. Maybe you watched Canadian Bacon a few too many times.
I can't tell if you were just poking fun or being serious. Guessing the latter (and if not I appologize)
Why do I care? I'm a part of the human race. Wonder if that sounds too idealistic?
What goes on in the US effects the world as a whole.
Just because I'm not American doesn't mean I don't care for the well-being of my neighbours and friends to the south. I eat breakfast (including "Canadian Bacon") lunch and supper beside Canadians, Americans, Germans, British, Dutch, Croatian, Portaguese, Austrailian and Romanians (to name a few) every day ;)

Grant

Hogan
10-17-2006, 08:45 AM
But the U.S. Decides the fate of many countries :)
Oh please.

What about Canadian-american citizens or Mexican american citizens living outside of the US. Should they be allowed to vote and decide the fate of the country? (honest question)
American (US) citizens are allowed to vote in US elections while out of the country - it's called Absentee Ballot.

Then the tyranny thing, the goverment taking guns away then turing on the people. Do some people in the US really think their government is capable of that? If so theirs a huge problem that needs to be adressed.
It happened in New Orleans after Katrina - NO PD entered & confiscated legally owned guns. One was caught on camera, when the PD threw a little old lady against the wall when taking her gun. NRA sued and courts ruled in their favor.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that was brought into effect when the threat of british invasion from the north was a very real threat. Times change and some laws should change along with them.

It was brought into the constitution to protect the citizens against the government tyranny, not because of British invasion.

Hogan
10-17-2006, 08:50 AM
a note to those not-so-hallowed members of my ignore-list, who seem to follow my posts with comments of their own (I guess...you're "ignored," after all, and I can't see 'em)...

Notice, how "brave" these guys are? They're so eager to rebut from behind the safety of the ignore curtain: but none too eager to debate, directly.

Well fellas: I'll make it simple, so that you can stop with your incessant trolling: just drop me a note, stating that you'll agree to stop the insults. In return, you get off my list.

But, I'm betting that you won't do this, as it's far safer to employ childish insult, than to debate openly, without insult, like adults.

Well? My Inbox awaits. But don't worry: I won't be holding my breath...

Are you serious? Ummm, a person who puts someone on ignore is one who is not to eager to debate directly. Your ignore button is your curtain. And if you have someone on ignore, how do you know whether they are insulting you or not? Pls, Mickey Boy, we are not that stupid.

Guilty Spark
10-17-2006, 11:47 AM
Oh please.
I'm not painting the US as some evil entity, I'm just stating a fact.
The USA is the most powerful country in the world. What they (you?) do not only effects them but everyone else.
US decisions don't just effect the US.

It happened in New Orleans after Katrina - NO PD entered & confiscated legally owned guns. One was caught on camera, when the PD threw a little old lady against the wall when taking her gun. NRA sued and courts ruled in their favor.

If they confiscated legally owned firearms than it's an open and shut case isn't it? The courts seemed to think so. Throwing an old lady against a wall? I wasn't there nor do I know the circumstances but at a guess I'm thinking they were probably in the wrong. Again, their mistake, they should suffer consiquences for their actions.

Gun control isn't a bad thing. It needs to be balanced. I'm not suggesting banning guns, I think laws should be stricter. More effort to keep weapons away from criminals and violent offenders. Balance John.

Luc X Saroufim
10-17-2006, 11:50 AM
when I was 12 I bought a BB gun similar in shize and shape to a 9mm....in Lebanon, of course ;)

Mike Sigman
10-17-2006, 12:33 PM
a note to those not-so-hallowed members of my ignore-list, who seem to follow my posts with comments of their own (I guess...you're "ignored," after all, and I can't see 'em)...

Notice, how "brave" these guys are? They're so eager to rebut from behind the safety of the ignore curtain: but none too eager to debate, directly. This has gotta be the dumbest post I've ever seen. Neil can't take the insults like the ones he incessantly dishes out, so he puts someone on his ignore list and then complains that others still post about his inanities?????? Please. What a whack job. And then acts like people care about whether they're on his "list" or not???? Jeez. Far, far out. What a laugh. ;)

Mike

Hogan
10-17-2006, 12:41 PM
I'm not painting the US as some evil entity, I'm just stating a fact.
The USA is the most powerful country in the world. What they (you?) do not only effects them but everyone else.
US decisions don't just effect the US.
Grant you can say that about Canada. What Canada decides can effect the US, as well. Even more so Mexico. Their government's direct involvement in the illegal immigration is effecting the US in tremendously bad ways.

Just because the US is powerful doesn't mean the world has a say in our affairs. Should the world have a say in China's affairs, or Japan's, or Russia's? Or should the US have a say in Mexico's affairs? The US doesn't control what happens in a country, that countries leaders &/or people control what happens therein.


Gun control isn't a bad thing. It needs to be balanced. I'm not suggesting banning guns, I think laws should be stricter. More effort to keep weapons away from criminals and violent offenders. Balance John.
Didn't say it was a bad thing - but how much more control do we need? Present laws aren't enforced properly, that is one problem, and the stupid actions of idiots who commit crime & harm with a weapon, that is another. You can't ban or outlaw, etc., an item used by the bad person just because s/he used a bad item.

Luc X Saroufim
10-17-2006, 12:59 PM
Grant you can say that about Canada. What Canada decides can effect the US, as well. Even more so Mexico. Their government's direct involvement in the illegal immigration is effecting the US in tremendously bad ways.


i think you're fishing here; the clout that the US has over certain countries is immense.

my sentimental ties are in the Middle East, and you can't convince me Canada is a power player the same way the US can be....unless those Arabs learn how to ice skate :D

Hogan
10-17-2006, 02:31 PM
i think you're fishing here; the clout that the US has over certain countries is immense.

my sentimental ties are in the Middle East, and you can't convince me Canada is a power player the same way the US can be....unless those Arabs learn how to ice skate :D

So, what you think the level of power of a country is is what governs whether you think others should have a say in our affairs or not.

Again, there are countries that have immense power of others - China over No. Korea, for example. Should No. Koreans have a say in China's affairs?

Your argument that because the US is rich & powerful other countries should have a say in its affairs holds no water.

Guilty Spark
10-17-2006, 10:14 PM
Grant you can say that about Canada. What Canada decides can effect the US, as well. Even more so Mexico. Their government's direct involvement in the illegal immigration is effecting the US in tremendously bad ways.
For sure. Canadas actions, like the US, have far reaching effects.

Just because the US is powerful doesn't mean the world has a say in our affairs. Should the world have a say in China's affairs, or Japan's, or Russia's? Or should the US have a say in Mexico's affairs? The US doesn't control what happens in a country, that countries leaders &/or people control what happens therein.
I'd say yes and no. I don't like the idea of other counties telling us what to do. Yet we do involve ourselves with other countries. Going to war for example. Is involving yourself in another countries affairs in order to protect your own country? I don't think so. Catch 22 in a way. I didn't mean to suggest countries should control what goes on in the US but their fate is defiantly intermixed with you guys.

but how much more control do we need? Present laws aren't enforced properly, that is one problem, and the stupid actions of idiots who commit crime & harm with a weapon, that is another. You can't ban or outlaw, etc., an item used by the bad person just because s/he used a bad item.
Completely agree. Step one would be to enforce the current laws. With that monster dealt with then we could take a look at whats working, whats not. What's common sense and whats out to lunch. That's a whole new debate though.

Neil Mick
10-18-2006, 12:58 PM
I've registered to vote every time I've moved, and it's been easy every time.

And, I'm betting that you AREN'T A-A, that you DIDN'T move into a neighborhood that IS primarily A-A, and that your name DIDN"T appear on the felon "caging list" in 2000, when the Republican Party stole the election in Florida, also in 2000.

I don't believe that citizens of Canada or Mexico should be able to decide the U.S.'s fate. I don't vote in their elections.

As Grant has pointed out: the US decides the fate of Canada...so why not a little reciprocity? It only seems fair.

Based on life expectancy statistics, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should be the ones fighting for privatization. Our current Social Security program guarantees that funds never get to black families upon the death of their elders; the money goes straight to old white ladies.

You mean the SS motto should be: "Spend now, for tomorrow, we die?" :crazy:

Well, I think a far more responsible policy would be to improve the conditions that make AA life expectencies so low, rather than eviscerate SS.

I could not deny a woman her right to abortion in cases of rape or incest, or if her life were in danger due to the pregnancy. I don't believe in the use of abortion as birth control, however.


Huh??? What in the Sam Hill does abortion have to do with canditate choices? :confused: :confused:

Then there's gun control...

Oh please, must we?? I thought this thread was about Bush! :confused:

Disarming the citizenry creates more potential for our government's standing army to be used as a tool for tyranny.

I don't know what it is with people and their slavish adoration of their guns; but I try to stay out of debates involving gun-control...esp when it's off-topic.