Post #18,050
11/13/01 11:19:41 AM
|
Hmmm. The pres says they "hate freedom"
And he also describes the terrorists as "against our way of life". Then we have the remarkable gutting of the constitution by Bush's attack dog Asscroft in order to "get the tools" to fight terrorism. Funny, I thought the constitution was an integral part of "our way of life". Does this mean the terrorists have already won? They might all be bombed into a fine red mist, but if the attacks were against "freedom" they will have met their goals.
So, our own govt has handed them the win. Assholes.
(Yeah, yeah, I know that is not the terrorists true goal, just following our fearless leaders own words to the logical conclusion)
How to mangle the truth;
Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
|
Post #18,071
11/13/01 1:42:05 PM
|
Gutting of the Constitution
We've had this whole debate before, but I think it's worthwhile to bring it up again at this point. Our Constitution has been ammended many times before. It is not a stagnant document, nor can it be for a dynamic government. Nor is it sacred. The previous administration has run roughshod over it just as much as the one that preceeded it just as the one that will follow this one will too. If you want to try to pursuade people to vote for your particular brand of slimeball politicians, please find a new marketing ploy...
This administration, including As"S"croft (it sounded really fucking juvenile the first time... huh, huh, Bevis - he said ass), has done a very good job during a very difficult time. Like my dad used to say to me, "if you're so fucking smart, why don't you get elected and change things?" And after reading your Democrat mindthink diatribes on these last few pages, may I suggest the same to you?
As a reformed Democrat (meaning a person who won't vote for any living candidate - unless a good one comes along - I haven't totally given up hope), and having lived through 8 years of vacuous "leadership by ridiculing or litigating your opponents", I'm really tired of this "style" of "debate", ie. It was the Clinton modus operandi - attack character of anyone you disagree with.
Forgive me, but to me, this style just means you've got no ideas of your own... I could be wrong. In any case, it is growing very old.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,079
11/13/01 2:02:18 PM
11/13/01 3:40:01 PM
|
If you really feel that way...
That the new laws rescinding constitutional rights are justified, then we don't really have much to discuss. I will admit to a feeling of awe that you consider this on a par with the previous administration. You honestly see this as business as usual? I don't.
One other thing
"I'm really tired of this "style" of "debate", ie. It was the Clinton modus operandi - attack character of anyone you disagree with."
If you don't like this style, then why do you use it?
How to mangle the truth;
Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
Edited by Silverlock
Nov. 13, 2001, 03:40:01 PM EST
|
Post #18,099
11/13/01 3:37:27 PM
|
As I believe has been noted before.
We did not need these provisions during
WW1
WW2
Korea
Vietnam
or any of the smaller wars since then.
But we need them NOW?
|
Post #18,107
11/13/01 3:58:59 PM
|
Actually things were different in WW1 and WW2
but during both of them, we had declared war, and normal civil liberties were not in effect. During WW2, in particular, there was massive government censorship and I'd bet wiretaps on every suspected enemy sympathizer with or without a warrent. But that was wartime.
Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, this so-called war on terrorism - there isn't a state of war in effect. If you want extraordinary government powers, declare war, don't pass laws that will stick to the books almost forever. (Yeah, yeah, I know about the sunset clauses on some provisions. I do wonder if the sun will really set on them.)
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #18,123
11/13/01 4:40:48 PM
|
Minor difference...
In all previous conflicts (except WWII...where we actually DID use some similar tactics), we were not fighting an enemy firmly entrenched on our own soil and on the soil of some 60+ other friendly nations.
We were not trying to find and deter activities being carried out on our own soil.
Don't you think the measures need to be somewhat different? After all...I don't think that the Republican Guard had access to a mail drop in Trenton New Jersey.
While I don't agree with all the measures being proposed...your comparison to conflicts of the past is ludicrous (excepting, of course, that you seem to have forgotten just how badly we trounced the civil rights of Japanese-Americans in WWII)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,144
11/13/01 6:27:26 PM
|
Why not?
"Don't you think the measures need to be somewhat different?"
No.
"After all...I don't think that the Republican Guard had access to a mail drop in Trenton New Jersey."
On the other hand, there was nothing preventing them from doing so. Yet no such measures were instated.
And while we did round up anyone suspected of Japanese heritage (was this wrong in your opinion), we did not legalize the procedures that we are legalizing now.
And if it was wrong to round up the Japanese here, why do we seem to be doing similar things now?
To put it another way, Germany had SPIES.
Germany had an EMBASSEY.
Germany had the finances of a COUNTRY.
We fought the Cold War for YEARS.
We know that US citizens were turned by the Soviets.
Yet we still did not legalize the wiretaps we have now.
|
Post #18,220
11/14/01 9:35:06 AM
|
Your decided..
...lack of grounding in the reality of this situation notwithstanding... On the other hand, there was nothing preventing them from doing so. Yet no such measures were instated. Maybe because they were country sponsored, located in that country...and something along the lines of 6000 miles away. Don't let that bit of real-world information bother you. To put it another way, Germany had SPIES.
Germany had an EMBASSEY.
Germany had the finances of a COUNTRY.
We fought the Cold War for YEARS.
We know that US citizens were turned by the Soviets. Yes...we knew all these things...and we also knew that all of those US citizens turned by the Soviets were charged with keeping a low profile, gathering information and supplying that information back to the Soviets. Guess what..some of them were even successful. And NONE OF THEM ever got onto a plane and crashed it into a building. NONE OF THEM were charged with filling a semi full of nitrate based explosives and blowing up the Golden Gate Bridge. NONE of their brethren had been known to strap TNT onto themselves and walk into a pizza shop.... <sarcasm>But other than that...I guess the situation is the same.</sarcasm> You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,322
11/14/01 6:20:09 PM
|
Reality isn't your forte.
"Maybe because they were country sponsored, located in that country...and something along the lines of 6000 miles away. Don't let that bit of real-world information bother you."
And I assume the terrorist here were born here, raised by parents who were born here and so on?
I didn't think so.
If ObL can get an operative here, I'm sure the Germans could have also.
In fact, I >KNOW< the Russians had operatives here.
ALL THROUGHOUT THE COLD WAR.
Yet we still didn't have these laws passed.
"Yes...we knew all these things...and we also knew that all of those US citizens turned by the Soviets were charged with keeping a low profile, gathering information and supplying that information back to the Soviets."
???
Bullshit!
They sold whatever they could to the Russians. It is amazing that our people never suspected them. And we STILL won.
"And NONE OF THEM ever got onto a plane and crashed it into a building."
And this is relevent because?
"NONE OF THEM were charged with filling a semi full of nitrate based explosives and blowing up the Golden Gate Bridge."
And this is relevent because?
"NONE of their brethren had been known to strap TNT onto themselves and walk into a pizza shop...."
Okay, so you're fixated on individual acts of terrorism.
You don't understand that compromising our spy systems or weapons was more important than killing 5000 people (a fraction of the number that die on the roads every year).
Gee, because they didn't want to go from a Cold War to a Hot War?
Care to give me a fucking estimate of how many US Citizens were killed during WW2?
Then why don't you do the math and tell me how many WTC's would have to occure to match that number.
|
Post #18,395
11/15/01 9:02:42 AM
|
Never dealt in real estate, eh?
You keep ignoring the most important fact....
Location, Location, Location.
The only other "hot" war to hit US soil in the past 100 years was WW2. The Japanese hit Pearl Harbor.
Now do we need to review just how badly we treated Japanese Americans after that happened? Do you not think the measures were a tad draconian? But wait...we don't put Japanese_Americans in "encampments" anymore...hmmm...wonder if a parallel can be drawn...
And...how much impact would wiretapping law changes have really affected anything in ww1, ww2, korea or vietnam?
And this current situation is NOT a cold war...it is a hot war...and it was not only declared here, but over the course of at least 2 decades in places like London, Munich, Brussels, Paris...and finally New York.
But...you keep on believing that there's no difference between the current situation and any other we've faced before. If the death of 5000 civilians can't convince you of that, then you are a permanently lost cause.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,420
11/15/01 12:32:28 PM
|
Historical side note...
The Japanese did also take some islands up in Alaska, but very few people really noticed.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #18,431
11/15/01 1:47:40 PM
|
And I'd bet...
...they didn't use landlines, cellphones or email to plan it either ;)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,433
11/15/01 1:53:01 PM
|
You got it.
I heard some of the Alaskans felt sorry for them, though, because they were just sitting their freezin' their asses off with nothing to do. So occasionally, they'd just sneak over to the island, fire a few rifle rounds over their heads, and run off laughing.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #18,442
11/15/01 2:54:15 PM
|
Re: Historical side note...
Alaska and Hawaii weren't states then, are territories also considered US Soil?
-----
Steve
|
Post #18,459
11/15/01 5:43:48 PM
|
Why the switch?
So now you're saying that we didn't have those new laws in place because the US wasn't invaded?
Not because there weren't spies here. We know there were.
Not because US citizens weren't killed. We know they were.
But because no foreign agent destroyed a building in the US?
So, after surviving things like WWI and WWII and the Cold War and the resources of entire countries being brought against us, we have to start dismantelling our freedoms because some suicide terrorists take out the WTC?
That is the kind of logic that I expected.
We could handle the KGB.
But ObL is too much of a threat.
|
Post #18,463
11/15/01 6:00:35 PM
|
Are you really....
...this dense or do you just play that way for effect.
Please tell me what effectiveness wiretapping would have had against the Germans. Against the Vietnamese? Against the Koreans?
And...if you think these laws were followed in cases of espionage...do you >really< think that?
Anyway, my part in this discussion with you is over...
There is no war to compare this against. Just comparing it to other large scale conflicts is ludicrous. The fact that you don't see this...or refuse to acknowledge it...is well...your prerogative, I guess. I can see, however, that there will be nothing gained from this but right-shift
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,483
11/15/01 8:23:51 PM
|
You left out a few.
"Please tell me what effectiveness wiretapping would have had against the Germans. Against the Vietnamese? Against the Koreans?"
None.
>IF< you only consider them, in their country.
By that same token, what use is wiretapping against Osama?
Against any of the countries that protect him?
Against any country that supports terrorism?
"There is no war to compare this against."
Why not? We've lost more US citizens in other wars. This is described as a "war".
"Just comparing it to other large scale conflicts is ludicrous."
Why?
"The fact that you don't see this...or refuse to acknowledge it...is well...your prerogative, I guess."
Just as it is your perogative to fail to see that measures we didn't use before are being advocated now when the threat is less than before.
And that is the truth of the matter.
More US citizens will have been killed in WWI or WWII or Korea or Vietnam than will be killed by terrorists.
Even when we ran the Japanese-Americans off to camps, we didn't pass laws to tap our own people. We never infringed upon the rights of the majority.
Bill says this is only because no one ever hit the continental US (except Japan).
Not that they wouldn't (look at Germany bombing England or any other European country).
But just because they didn't get around to doing it.
|
Post #18,484
11/15/01 8:27:01 PM
|
Wiretap Osama?
We have Echelon for that.
Oops, I forgot, Echelon doesn't exist. My bad.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #18,485
11/15/01 8:28:54 PM
|
Yawn
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #19,057
11/20/01 9:57:22 PM
|
What a fscking stupid non-response
If you don't have anything to say, and can't just shut the fuck up, why don't *you* admit that you have no reasonable response, for once in a fucking while, BeeP?
A stupid "Yawn" certainly doesn't make you look any more right, when it's obvious that you're just plain fucking wrong, you know.
This may come as a shock to you, but this isn't the first time you've been wrong and Khasimioch right.
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #19,094
11/21/01 9:39:06 AM
|
To a continued
idiotic line of reasoning.
And the fact that you consider this situation in any way similar to WWI, II, Korea, or Vietnam...
Well, I guess some folks just don't get it.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #19,167
11/21/01 4:06:22 PM
|
C'mon BeeP - missing *all* the common denominators?
And the fact that you consider this situation in any way similar to WWI, II, Korea, or Vietnam...
Offhand I would say the common milieu for *any* State action transcends the always peculiar details of any next one:
At root: the bases for there *being* this particular State! Not merely the documents, Constitution and related - but our putative ethos? and the priorities which we preach at home and abroad (whether the preached-to think our sermons hypocritical? (sometimes) or merely sanctimonious! (often)).
We certainly cannot claim that ~we are inured to what others think of us (though many believe we Are inured to whatever it is - which others think, period). We live! to preach our magnificence and.. deem that our prosperity is related to Our Goodness. Est-ce que ce n'est pas vrai, mon cher?
Thus, all the above is mere rhetoric we amuse ourselves with, in strifeless intervals. It is in stressful periods ONLY - when we demonstrate what we Really believe. Like now.
Like Ashcroft and the hubris AND fearfulness in the now litany of new Official Laws for the Millennium: in form of dictats er Executive Orders - freed from those messy constraints, tiresome details like debate, public discussion, apprising of legislators, legislation by *Legislators* - opinion of judiciary. Etc.
Oh.. because we are in a hurry! Just as we were in a hurry, hours after after 12/7/41. Yet then, while we exaggerated the guesstimate of the loyalties of US Citizens of Japanese descent (also Italians, less so -oddly- Germans amongst us) -- at no time did we conceive of the Draconian hysterical mass of abortive intrusions into personal Rights, as are occurring in the present contretemps.
Common denominators? saboteurs (real and imagined) - looking Just Like Us\ufffd or.. different (too). Unknown 'plans', schemes, capacity! to commit nefarious deeds .. like maybe blowing up [all the same stuff as now]. Need more common denominators of all the past events and our responses?
{sheesh}
Yeah.. this one is *Different* all right: as are the wildest of imaginations, Each time. Only This time: we are willing to forget at lightning pace (da capo)
At root: the bases for there *being* this particular State! Kill Those to save That, but please to call it, "military necessity". Again.
A.
Imagine.. if Economics Principles finally ever won completely? over umm National Principles (if we still have any left next month). Imagine *that world*.
{shudder}
|
Post #19,169
11/21/01 4:16:29 PM
|
I can't help blindness.
Nor do I intend to carry this argument alot further.
If you cannot judge the differences in a) the perceived enemy and b) the extreme pervasiveness of wired/wireless communications as a support infrstructure for networked organizations....well theres not alot of point in discussing why monitoring capability is more important now than it was before.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,505
11/15/01 11:33:54 PM
|
actually...not that I care...
but wiretapping (and code breaking) was an integral part of WWII. Enigma, Flower Code, Navajo talkers and all that.
Of course, flip side is that this is not a declared war and WWII was. (I know, details, details)
|
Post #18,396
11/15/01 9:26:59 AM
|
FWIW
And I assume the terrorist here were born here, raised by parents who were born here and so on?
I don't have the cite, but at least one of the terrorists that has been mentioned in the news lately (I don't recall if he was on one of the planes, or just associated in another way) was born in Illinois. :-) Regards,
-scott anderson
|
Post #18,101
11/13/01 3:42:25 PM
|
Clarification...
The problem with a document such as our sacred constitution, is that usually it is used interchangeably with Bill of Rights, but I will remind you that the last president (a lawyer, no less) couldn't even determine what the word "is" means... and they call Bush Jr. stupid? And "rights" are relative as well. What happened to the rights of smokers under Clinton? Oh, you don't smoke, right? What, smokers have no rights? And what about due process of law (a large part of the Constitution... Clinton ran totally roughshod over all those "meaningless" paragraphs...
As far as the Bill of Rights (so there's no confusion),
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in theland or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
********************************************************************
Now, I take it that you are concerned with Amendment IV?
Define to me the words "unreasonable" and "probable cause"...
Then, while your at it, glance at the 1'st amendment... tell me why prayer in school is not guaranteed by that one. Or the right to a tank by the 2nd...
OHHH! You interpret? So your precious Bill of Rights are OPEN TO INTERPRETATION? Get my point, lefty?
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,104
11/13/01 3:51:30 PM
|
Classic use of fallacy
Which fallacy is left as an exercise for the student.
For help in understanding what a fallacy is, go [link|http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/fallazoo.htm|here].
How to mangle the truth;
Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
|
Post #18,117
11/13/01 4:21:04 PM
|
Classic use of phallus...
For a brain.
heh, heh, Beavis, he said phallus...
WTF are you talking about? Writing notes to yourself?
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,122
11/13/01 4:29:50 PM
|
Consistency not one of your strong points?
You joined this thread with a rant that included the line
"I'm really tired of this "style" of "debate", ie. It was the Clinton modus operandi - attack character of anyone you disagree with."
Well maybe. I notice you don't metion insults as something you're tired of. And your use of them indicates you do like them.
So, in the spirit of the game...
your signature pic suits you well.
How to mangle the truth;
Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
|
Post #18,132
11/13/01 5:14:09 PM
|
Nahh. the pic is an insult to Zippy
Who has a deeper comprehension of the Murican Zoo than most folk around, whereas The Scream King.. prefers EZ black/white doggerel and, apparently - the waving of flags to exorcise embarrassing Conundrums* in the Zoo cages.
* like that National Bird Conundrum: the One-Two Party with Two Right Wings -- him so funny that Bird -- flies only in a downward spiral. Notice it nearing the ground?
Please apologize to Zippy; his feelings are easily hurt by wrongful associations!
All for (1, 2, ..3) *Unity* Now ...
Card-carrying member, Zippy Is Tops Society
|
Post #18,191
11/13/01 11:36:10 PM
|
Intelligence not one of yours?
I also joined this "rant" with a lot of other "stuff" too... To which you reply to some mythical "students" (implying that scholarly folks will see some mythical fallacy in my post?)
No, I insulted you because your last post is an insult to rhetoric. You declare there is a fallacy, you don't point it out, you instead choose to imply (to some mythical students - like this is some type of 101 Rhetoric class!) that... You have exemplarily displayed the attitude that I have come to detest from the current crop of so called liberals... The condescending attitude - "you're wrong... Trust me, I know, 'cause I'm really really smart. I won't bother to tell you why, that's below me" Which pretty much summarizes the entire state of the Democratic party these days. We know what's best for everyone. Trust us. Send us your money and we'll do all the social engineering for you all... 'Cause we're smart and you're not...
Any other questions?
Class dismissed. Right?
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,216
11/14/01 8:39:16 AM
|
Evidently not
I keep replying to your trolliing.
How to mangle the truth;
Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
|
Post #18,231
11/14/01 10:14:59 AM
|
I'm not done with you yet.
And yes, I am trolling. And I perceive it as a reply to your troll about As(s)croft and "students" and other vacuous comments paid for and contributed by the left...
LOOKY HERE... You are in the War On Terrorism forum. You come out railing about your Chicken Licken fear about the Fourth Amendment. I point out that the Constitution (or more specifically, the Bill of Rights) is not a static document. That it has been, is and will be open to interpretation. I don't ask you where the hell you've been hiding your head through the last twenty years during the erosion of same Ammendment by our "War on Drugs" or the erosion of perceived civil rights with our wars on Poverty, Smoking, etc... It just seemed to me that you were parroting some talk show host (Bill Maher, maybe?) with his condescending left wing crap...
What I have seen is a consistent pattern from your posts to put out some kind of agenda that I've seen before. I am willing to listen if you will throw something substantive on the table. NOW...
The sight you posted is interesting and yes, rhetoric must appeal to ethos, pathos, logos, something... And logic should be, well, logical. What I fail to see is what specific fallacy are you pointing out in my post that would do anything to deter from my main point which is that the Constitution is not nor has ever been a static document... This was important for me to establish to try to ascertain why you are now so upset with this current (perceived) assault. Instead, you chose to hide behind some childish (condescending, too) duck with your "fallacy" post and link...
So, maybe your not a paid shill for the Democratic Party, and maybe we just got off on the wrong foot... I ask you again, what is your major concern with this particular erosion of the Fourth Amendment?
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,236
11/14/01 10:37:29 AM
|
One more thing...
What is the TRUTH? You keep accusing me of "mangling" it. What is the truth? And just what exactly makes you believe that you have some magical path to it that I don't? Could it be that maybe you THINK you know the "truth" about whatever it is your think you know the "truth" about, but I THINK you may be wrong... Or do you consider things like that in "truthworld"?
If the "truth" means that the current administration is further eroding the Fourth Ammendment because of the current fear of terrorism, then I think there is no argument.
If you think the "truth" is that this only happens when Repos are in charge (which you imply), then, I THINK you are incorrect... Which is what I've been trying to point out.
If you think the "truth" is that you can do anything constructive ABOUT it, by a juvenile mispelling of Ashcroft's name and calling the President by an initial,etc.. on an INET forum and parroting some Democratic mindspeak... well, then maybe, just maybe you'd be barking up the wrong tree as well. Which again, I suggested to you in the "if your so smart..." remark. And if the truth is that in "truthworld" noone ever calls anyone out to question, then welcome to America and the Internet...
This is where I am coming from... Have I clearly identified why I am screaming at you?
Maybe I'm too sensitive? Yeah... Right...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,247
11/14/01 11:27:24 AM
|
Ok, I'll explain
As far as your comment re. "mangling the truth". Not directed at you at all. It's part of my sig.
On to my comments regarding the constitution. The term "gutting" is, I admit, an exageration. But not much of one.
The fallacy I refer to is false analogy, goes like this-
Person A does a very bad thing.
I point out that person A has done a very bad thing
Person B does a somewhat bad thing
you deny the thing done by person A is very bad by pointing out that person B has done the somewhat bad thing.
Let alone the relative severity of the bad things done, how does the actions of another excuse the actions of the first? Following that logic could lead to things like, "You can't put me in jail for murder your Honor because you failed to put that person in jail for theft."
Now, you may not think that that the recent actions of McCongress and Asscroft (Yeah it's juvenile, so what? I'm insulting them, not you) are any more significant than other actions taken in the past. I do think these are significant.
There you go. My last attempt at civility with you. The ball is in your court.
How to mangle the truth;
Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
|
Post #18,260
11/14/01 12:41:33 PM
|
We're getting there...
Sorry about the noise about the sig... I've had major problems with sigs myself...
I'm all for civility as well. I am glad that you have admitted that your initial post had some exagerration. As well, I felt that the "tone" (implying that our current government hates freedom worse than the Taliban - is a slight exagerration as well :-) )... All water under the proverbial bridge now.
Now, I'll admit that I "loaded" statements in my following posts. I was intending to first take apart the rhetoric, then lead to the meat, which is entirely important. I failed miserably... such is life.
Getting back to the Fourth Amendment, I absolutely agree with your premise that it is being "challenged" again with the current crop o' politicos... I just felt it necessary to point out that we truly have been through this kind of "law by reaction" in the past and when cooler heads prevail, then the changes are rescinded. That is my hope in any event.
I have been railing long and hard about the protection of the Bill of Rights and how it has been "stretched", beginning with the sixties (probably before that, but I wasn't around then!). The creation of agencies with legislative and oversight power (never a part of the Constitution). The legal system with too many laws, lawyers and not enough sense to dispense common justice... I could go on :-)
What is important to keep in mind is that people in this country truly are scared, liberals and conservatives alike. Noone (most probably) could have conceived of commercial jets being flown into the World Trade Center or the ramifications that it would have on Arabs, suspected terrorists, etc... It stands to reason, IMHO, that doing nothing is NOT better than attempting to find these types of folks. It does require a tradeoff. How far we are willing to trade our privacy for security is a matter to be played out. I honestly didn't think that our government would "stretch" the Fourth (and Fifth for that matter) as much as it did fighting the "war on drugs"... It did. So there is plenty of reason for our concern.
We added a new agency for Homeland Security... That got the hairs on the back of my liberal neck standing straight up... Hell, these guys and we the people are all "winging it" right now. There is no precedent for the current scenario saving the old Peter Sellers "Mouse that Roared" movie. But then, they didn't really attack anything...
For what it's worth, I am very concerned about our Fourth Amendment rights (as I understand them) and took offense (rightly or wrongly) by how I feel they are being "politicized" currently. Whenever issues become politicized, there is also a tendency for them to become marginalized as well. I feel they are too important to become just another blip on the American commercial network...
Perhaps what we, the concerned citizenry, should be asking for is that any modifications to the Bill during wartime are up for immediate review as soon as the crisis is passed? Then we can clearly scrutinize how badly we've jeopardized individual liberties.
In other words, I like what you're saying, but I don't like how you're saying it... Critics voice, take your choice... You have no problem with me.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,267
11/14/01 1:11:15 PM
|
Refreshing
I just love it when a thread is saved from the flames. I think we aren't too far apart on this. My original point (however badly expressed) was in the nature of a logic exercise. I regret the implication that I think our gov is worse than the Taliban. However, I strongly disagree with your contention that the current inroads on civil liberties are simply more of the same that others have done in the past. I think this is much more serious. With that in mind, the point I was trying to make was, given the rhetoric of our administration regarding the aims of the terrorists, we have already lost the "war on terrorism" due to our actions in response.
How to mangle the truth;
Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
|
Post #18,278
11/14/01 2:27:46 PM
|
Point taken...
And I'm no prophet. I am guardedly optimistic that this is more of the same... We can agree to disagree on the "degree" of severity of this current power grab, and we can agree to agree that we must try to diligently guard our rights to unlawful search and seizure and due process...
I'm ready to put this to rest if you are.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,280
11/14/01 2:37:39 PM
|
Putting it to rest.
Complete agreement. (about putting it to rest. Other things? We'll see.)
:-)
How to mangle the truth;
Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
|
Post #18,299
11/14/01 4:05:20 PM
|
PS to both.
Mouse That Roared !!
Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..
I'd forgotten that masterpiece.. Would that 'we-all' had not: there is no finer pomposity-buster than Sellers in a good vehicle - and that one was a Ferrari Testa Rossa on nitro.
The Q Bomb says it all.
Nice to see Sweet Reason is alive and well at, at least zIWE. I too shall attempt next to avoid merely replying in kind to shibboleths and, if I can - point out as well: the sight of a process doomed to doggerel by M$-like initial Awful McDesign. (repeat after self the mantra.. scale and relativity, scale and relativity, scale and relativity..)
Peace. We have to become accustomed (but not inured) to the Interesting Times - and remain vigilant of the BS of all the bounders, each looking for opportunities, whatever sewn-on label they sport. No?
Ashton
|
Post #18,301
11/14/01 4:33:19 PM
|
Pomposity buster
Being There. Sellers most understated role. And an absolute delight to watch. The cluelessness of the politicians/media/business leaders reacting to this "Gardner" is hilarious. The Shirly MacClaine masturbation scene is especially rich in wry humor. Highly recommended to any with an appreciation of subtlety in film. I've got to get the book to see how much is left out of the movie.
How to mangle the truth;
Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
|
Post #18,310
11/14/01 5:02:36 PM
|
Yes.. of Course! Timeless and entirely *current*
Maybe more than Mouse. Everyone got to watch close-ups of most congresscritters recently - in that orchestrated Let's Get Horny Billy rewrite of The Ten Commandments Live! on color Tee Vee!
Permanently ingrained: those faces, that High Dudgeon, that McSincerity! er hypocrisy dripping onto the expensive carpeting. Mr. YouthfulIndiscretionHyde presiding with requisite silver-hair and avuncular epithets. Cackle.. glorp..
One of the few videos I bought. Thanks - have to view it again soon, with a cohort. Chauncy Gardner Lives! He lives in the hearts and minds of every little girl at Christmas time.. Yes! Virginia - there IS a Chauncey Gardner !!!
Ashton
ain't us homo-saps a Riot!?
RIP Mr. Sellers
|
Post #18,312
11/14/01 5:13:28 PM
|
Okay, Okay.... I'll bite...
The Party is the ultimate in my view... Birdy num nums, birdy num nums...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,372
11/14/01 10:40:35 PM
|
nope there is a girl in my soup
and dont forget leu licunce pour la mahenky
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #18,326
11/14/01 6:38:22 PM
|
If you can't keep up, take notes.
From your latest noodle-logic rant: What happened to the rights of smokers under Clinton? Actually, the same thing that happened to the "rights" of smokers under George I and Ronald McDonald. BTW, the fallacy is that smoking is a privilege, not a right, Butthead. Therefore, there is no "right" to smoke. Just as there is no right to drive. Hope you were paying attention this time...there will be a quiz... jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #18,398
11/15/01 9:58:54 AM
|
Exqueeze me... Noodle man...
I have the right to do anything I damn well please until someone tells me it's illegal... It was perfectly fine and dandy to smoke anywhere until the late '80's and '90's. While you may not perceive that as a right, you'd be wrong. I could smoke cigs in public until the Bush/Clinton admin if I so desired. Reason it was brought up ... as it has been before, where the hell were you when this right was taken away? It probably didn't bother you 'cause you didn't smoke... You claim you have the "right" not to breath second hand smoke where it never existed before... OH? By what magic "right" did this happen? Which is exactly what is happening now with the perceived "rights" of people to privacy - albeit that privacy is more universal and sexy than smoking... See my point. Or do you want me to go through this again but more slowly...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,436
11/15/01 2:16:30 PM
|
Re: Exqueeze me... Noodle man...
So you claim to have the right to drive a car (or an 18-wheeler, for that matter)?
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #18,440
11/15/01 2:43:32 PM
|
I guess that also extends the right...
...to own, concentrate, and release into the environment substances that are toxic to others?
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #18,449
11/15/01 4:09:14 PM
|
You got it pal...
now give me your car keys...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,452
11/15/01 4:28:54 PM
|
Which is why...
...we have emissions tests here in Washington state as a prerequisite to relicensing, and California is forcing automakers to move towards zero-emission vehicles.
My father chain-smoked while I was growing up. I was frickin' miserable the whole time, and couldn't stand it. He finally quit when I was around 20.
If you have a right to blow smoke in my face, (smoking not being an essential service - transportation is a HELL of a lot more essential than smoking) I have a right to urinate in your beer.
So, where do you keep your supply?
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #18,456
11/15/01 5:18:20 PM
|
Which is absolute and total bullshit...
you have no "right" to do anything if we view the world from your myopic perspective. Everything is a priviledge unless YOU deem it okay? Is this how it works? Or are YOU now gonna hide behind the "oppressive majority" to claim your rights? If so, then screw you when you need my help... Isn't this how it works?
My dad chainsmoked too. I hated it. I also hate loud music in cars. I also hate people who wear too much perfume. I also hate people who don't open doors for other people. You know what, so fucking what? When you use legislation to cram stupid laws down people's throats because of the way the political wind is blowing, then you end up giving up rights... Again, which is my point. If you are not willing to defend the unpopular ones, where is the consistency in that. Why do I care if YOUR privacy is infringed? I mean, I have nothing to hide, let 'em bug me all they want...
In any event, if you can't see the correlation, I'm not going to belittle this any further. And as far as you beer pissing, I'd just throw it in your face anyway... Then blow smoke on you.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,457
11/15/01 5:29:54 PM
|
No, I see the correlation.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
Now, if smoking did no harm to others, then by all means, I'd be all for you comitting suicide in whatever way you choose necessary. And I don't advocate creating "smoking laws" - the idea of creating a targeted law is exactly the kind of thing that gets us all in a lot of deep shit. We create laws that apply to "all cases, except where noted in subsections b., c., d. f.42, and this other law over here."
Get back to basics, I say.
Cut out all the crap, and instead pass a single environmental law that defines a maximum acceptible carcinogen output. I'll admit I'm pulling this idea out of my nether regions right now, so I'm not really sure how we'd benchmark that, but I'm sure something fairly reasonable could be dreamed up.
Then apply that standard across the board. You drive? It applies to you. You smoke? It applies to you as well. You piss in somebody's beer? Well, you've got other problems, in addition to the carcinogen law. :)
I'd love to have a solution without laws. The problem is, we're human beings. Anarchy is a great state, if all you've got is totally enlightened beings, which our species seems to be lacking in.
It might very well be that the carcinogen output from cars would completely blow away second-hand cigarrete smoke. I'm fine by that, and quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised at all. Cigarretes do make me personally ill, and maybe specifically attacking them is wrong - but saying that we have a "right to smoke" without regards to those around us IMO is wrong.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #18,464
11/15/01 6:14:17 PM
|
It's becoming a lovefest... :-)
And yes, it would be great if we could get an "enlightened public" to be mindful of others all the time at all places. Having said all of this, I'm glad that the smoking bans are in place as well 'cause there's nothing to more annoying than walking into a smoke filled room to eat (or drink - something I personally don't do). As well, having played the "bar scene" for many years with rock bands, etc... smoking is even the more personally offensive. I've have been smoke free for about 4 months now (Zyban - which may explain my mood swings!) and this is a very touchy subject for me. The point I'm getting at though is that every little liberty that we the people are willing to cede for comfort or security, add up. Kind of like the jokes about congress "a billion here and a billion there, pretty soon your talking about real money..."
I'm getting so verbose lately thought that I'm boring myself... As stated earlier, I hope that the Silverlocks of the world are able to keep civil liberties on the "front burner" and believe it or not, I'm trying to help out by tempering the message (a political filter if you will) so it can't be easily dismissed as being just more partisan bickering...
Oh, and as a personal favor, can we agree to poopcan the beer thing. It makes me ill every time you say it... It just confirms one of my greatest fears concerning the color and smell of American beer... Please?
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,476
11/15/01 7:11:27 PM
|
No more beer comments, I assure you. :P
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #18,493
11/15/01 9:36:31 PM
|
But ya know...
...it does make me wonder:
Are you more afraid I'll piss in your beer, or that you'll realize that me pissing in your beer would dramatically increase the quality of it? (Evil grin)
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #18,470
11/15/01 6:48:10 PM
|
WARNING - red-herring alert!
Instead of: [...]you have no "right" to do anything if we view the world from your myopic perspective. Everything is a priviledge [sic] unless YOU deem it okay? Is this how it works? Or are YOU now gonna hide behind the "oppressive majority" to claim your rights? If so, then screw you when you need my help... Isn't this how it works? How' bout you answer the question: Where's your beer supply? jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #18,451
11/15/01 4:17:34 PM
|
You don't need a license to smoke...
But since we brought this up, the topic of what is a "right" or a "priviledge" is a good one to have. Probably not in the War On Terrorism forum, but good nonetheless...
If you are asking about the right to drive, no, I'd say that you have a right to receive a license if you meet the requirements and follow the rules of your state.
But since we have juxtaposed cars into this smoking equation, you still have the right to pollute my air with yours... Much more toxically (a word?) than any second hand smoke can... so by all rights, and using the same logic as was used to ban smoking in public, we should be able to ban motor vehicles for the "second hand smoke" they produce, right? Oh, that would be umpopular, wouldn't it... Politics... Go figure.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,472
11/15/01 6:50:21 PM
|
Actually, I agree...
I would support a law prohibiting driving a polluting vehicle indoors....
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #18,481
11/15/01 8:11:31 PM
|
Or: Everything not prohibited is compulsory.
|
Post #18,131
11/13/01 4:57:30 PM
11/13/01 5:03:59 PM
|
Jeez Scream-ful One - I be so *ashamed*
So ALL ISSUES devolve to the Democrat Repub Mutual epithet - izzat it?
And natch - when a 'Demo' refers to the er {Constitution}, why it ain't perzackly the SameThing.. as when a Repub refers to the [Constitution]. ..pondering.. mulling
And since One of these (members of the One Murican Party with Two Right Wings) must be Right. T'other (imaginary party) must be Wrong. ..cogitating.. cognitive dissonance occurring.. .. .. ..Eureka!
How could I have missed!.. of course, these New Laws are being passed for my own comfort and security! I see I must Get with the Program. Again:
[link|http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2001/11/12/tomo/index.html|My Country Daft or Lugubrious]
Thanks for pointing that out. Makes all discussion next - so much EZier.
Actually - makes discussion superfluous.
A.
PS Oh Master(de)bator with Word-thingies:
How unusually clever of you, to portray Clinton's *self-defense* intentional confounding of a legal atrocity; done by lawyers as commit legal atrocities: in the Language of legal atrocity iself!
Gosh.. I guess you missed the irony of a palpably Political Effort to reverse an election: and Clinton's possibly understanding the Constitution with more depth .. at least than: what you can muster here. Situational ethics is so comforting to the afflicted.
Ah yes -- you sure made That Point clear. To the reader.
|
Post #18,184
11/13/01 11:26:12 PM
|
My, my, my...
To you, good sir, I will take time to respond. As you may know, I am keenly aware of the the Murican zoo. I am also aware of the "so called left" putting words in my and other "liberals" mouths running lockstep with the mindspeak of the Katie Couric's of the world... Sorry boys, but the show is over. Some things are much more important than pseudo-intellectual tripe such as the Chicken Lickin, Goosy Loosy nonsense that the fucking demogogues... er demigods... er Democrats have been espousing for the last 20 years... Yes, I've been keeping track. It annoys me much more than the Republican mindspeak because it is so much winier and childish... I didn't get my way, so I'm gonna keep crying and screaming...
Something for you to ponder, Ashton, as you've seen me be just as merciless towards the Republicans... Could it be that maybe, just maybe, your ox is now conceivably starting to be gored and you and your until recently happy ideological cohorts are just now starting to see the power gone mad corruption in Washington? But that doesn't mean that others weren't being gored before the "unholy election"... Think for a minute.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,205
11/14/01 4:07:30 AM
|
Not my ox. That died some time ago.
I find the entire pabulum of Murican political cacophony as ludicrous as, apparently - you do. In the spirit of our polar national non-debates.. I just take each asserted POV as a monad. Don't try to keep a running tally but - yes, usually your little notes of cheer are mixed with less straw than above. Whad'ya do - install XP by mistake, and can't get rid of it?
Still, carping about Bill C's use of BS lawyer-speak, amidst a patently political attempt at a coup d'etat (Portuguese for, tryin to run the sucker outta town).. this overseen by one of the outstanding sexual hypocrites around, Mr. Youthful Indiscretion Himself.. well, that's kinda a red flag.
Still, the larger humor is on the larger scale: if there were ever a more juvenile, Puritan-besotted sexually hypocritical society to-the-core than this: nominations? So at least there was daily comic relief as these folk tried to stir up the sheep to evict this.. this.. typical Murican male! - for acting out what so many wished they could manage. As in hee hee.
Well, I'd like to argue that the concern for the general social welfare, rights of the working person (especially since the assassination + self-immolation of the trade unions): is squarely in the Democrat court. Can't though - to obtain power Bill C. had to adopt first the speech patterns of the terminally misanthropic, then - after ill-advised forays into military sex and pompous misreading of the power of the insurance and medical Corps: he lost that overdue reform for us all, too. When his sl. rt. of center is called 'Liberal' and Bushie's far-right current influence group is called 'Conservative' - WTF does *anything* mean anymore? (what does 'mean' mean?)
So I have no idea what a W2K 'Democrat' might do, to find a leader for 2004 - or even much idea how many actual Democrats remain here. All I know for sure is that 'Democrats' aren't Democrats and Republicans aren't .. 'Conservative' but are tossing red meat to their most reactionary wing; mixing-in theology wherever they can get away with it - and are more than happy to even increase Corporate power to fund the next election. (Theirs natch).
Guess it'll still be: a pseudo-Democrat over a Reactionary masquerading as a Conservative. Every time. OR: another Wrestler! Couldn't possibly do worse.
I have no solutions for redesign, because any I come up with - require an adult informed citizenry. What we have is a juvenile, disinformed mass of mouth-breathing consumers. Since they aren't 'safe' for ideas - ya sure as hell can't make ideas safe for them. Corporate knows what's best for Corporate.
Any questions? or do we gotta return to all Monica all the time? (forgot name of the missing surrogate du jour, but we haven't heard much about her Svengali, Condit - since we got a real Issue to nationally weasel to death with platitudes)
(Who's Katie Couric - izzat comm'l TeeVee or somethin? ;-)
Ashton
now if we could get the whole population away from their TeeVees to practice thrashing stuff out too, why by '04 -
Naaah. By then- we might have to ask the guy with the armband for permission. Blockenf\ufffdhrer?
|
Post #18,229
11/14/01 9:57:19 AM
|
L&COL...
That's laughing and crying...
As you have correctly surmised, yes, I have recently installed XP and do want it to go away :-) (actually not "so" awful). It is a good Quake III server though, so I may let it lay around for a while.
Katie Couric is the (still) perky one that used to sit next to Brant/Bryant (sp?) (now Matt anyway) to tell the morning hypnotized what to think. And going with the new tagline, "you know that the hypnotized never lie - do you?"
Having cleared those things up, I am growing tired of the drone of DemoRepo buzz marketing on any medium. This place was sort of my last respite. Now... even on the War On Terrorism forum, I'm getting (paid?) political adds from the left... It wouldn't be so awful if it weren't for the fact that I have been screaming for 20 odd years about the drug laws and the way THEY have been destroying the Fourth... Terrorists/Drug Dealers... next? Car dealers?
This type of Rip Van Winkle gestalt just sort of smells of political sell sell sell to me. I, of course, could be wrong, but I am willing to take my First Amen right (praise...) to ferret out what I perceive as bullshit. Now, "I" feel better...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"You know that the hypnotized never lie"
P. Townshend
"Do you?"
P. Townshend
|
Post #18,307
11/14/01 4:48:00 PM
|
Will be on same side of barricades..
Yes.. the War 0n ___ is such a Popular Murican EZ-alternative to profound thought, debate on any issue. Hey! we declared war! - now we can let the &%*#@ Marines handle it, and go back to sleep: the cheeldrun will be safe! (except from us, of course).
I'd give the War on Poverty somewhat higher marks. Johnson was perhaps the Master politico of our time; knew where the bodies were buried, and the intimate strains of personal madness within ALL the heavy lifters (and even me-toos). While his motive was surely somewhat ~personal legacy (how could it not be?), I think he was sorely stung by the disdain and mawkishness of the Kennedy clan - who unwisely dismissed him as a rustic buffoon. LBJ was nothing if he wasn't smart - and he knew fully how any efforts to actually address er 'peoples needs'!, was an alien concept to the c-critters. Etc.
You are of course entirely correct about the prior erosion of lots of principles < 9/11. But I'd see that Mouse That Roared and raise you with a pair of Duesys:
Babbitt, and It Can't Happen Here. Believe Sinclair Lewis was our homegrown de Tocqueville (maybe augment that with Graham Greene, In the American Grain for advanced divination?). 'We' are in fact intellectually lazy (even anti-) as a matter of preference - for simplistic fixes to highly interrelated giant Problems. We flush our problems down the toilet whenever we can - surely our most popular 'solution'.
The Drug War proves: the current crop of 'consumers' hasn't an iota of comprehension.. of the mechanics of Prohibition and why it failed, would fail thus Why: This Too shall pass - after Enough cousins are doing 40 years, for wanting to alter Their Own\ufffd &*%$&* minds (to escape the unutterable banality of the Murica we have let the Corporations 'build' with our ovine complicity).
I spit on the graves (present and future) of the illiterate MBA/CPA-circumscribed entrepreneurs and their Marketing mouth-breathers, so typified by the recently deceased MeMeMe.com in(s)anity. Babies playin Greed The Game\ufffd. Talk 'bout yer virtual Reality..
May they be slowly asphyxiated by masses of ground-up $1000 bills dropping slowly into open throats - as, staked in prone position: they must listen to Corp-CDs of cacophonous sounds (at 90 dBm) as are sold to the grazing sheep, to keep them disoriented. Also smells: of frying burgers with double-bacon. And disco/exercise videos.
Well, so much for the mild solutions..
Bumper sticker seen: Die Yuppie Scum!
(Another wimpy moderate.)
Ashton
at least we'll soon know Why things will next occur (?)
.. things fall apart .. the center cannot hold
(We got such a good *price* - we sold it All)
|
Post #18,339
11/14/01 7:54:14 PM
|
Hey - <lightbulb on> - does this mean the expression...
Ashton uses a spelling I haven't seen before: But I'd see that Mouse That Roared and raise you with a pair of Duesys: ..."That's a doozy!" refers / originally referred to a car?!? (Brand name used as a symbolic expression of "excellence", like?) That it actually means -- or used to mean -- "That's a Duesenberg!"...? Cool! Ya learn something new every day. Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Comes Ever Closer To Knowing Fucking Everything
|
Post #18,343
11/14/01 8:14:49 PM
|
Ya gotta watch that incipient Alzheimers..
Twas in fact thee thyself who er emended my scrofulous error of using Deusy, reminding me 'twas Duesenberg! (least I didn't say, Deusenburg).
And while assuredly pronounced Doozy, I feel that proper accuracy for a {sniff} now fading Marque is de rigeur.. a Marque unknown to latest crop of Yahoos lusting after copycat homogenized Logos with interchangeable bodies attached, that is.
(I can only vaguely recall seeing it in print, but would bet 10:1 it was indeed spelled 'Duesy' - I'd remember the post-modern abortion flag.. which Doozy would have evoked in my nascent brain as large as a planet.. I would!)
Natch too, we of the Cisitalia Owners Club possess much finer sensibilities and wisdom, except wehn/sic we transpose ue and stuff.
The Man Who Fills in the Blanks for
The Man Knowing Fucking-near Everything
|
Post #18,345
11/14/01 8:18:01 PM
|
Er
Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..
Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..
|
Post #18,533
11/16/01 9:13:21 AM
|
I think that was only the whole word I saw then?
Or perhaps the discussion was already so car-oriented that if you used the short form, it was "too obviously" a nickname for the car-building brothers? Either way, I don't think the connection to the *idiomatic expression* for "Great!" had occurred to me before.
Couldn't swear to it, though... Indeed, Alzheimer is the final Nemesis of us all -- if Murphy doesn't get us, he will!
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #18,585
11/16/01 3:41:36 PM
|
Heh.. forgot what -- er, what you said is prolly correct :-)
|
Post #18,597
11/16/01 7:27:43 PM
|
Not that we should...
Either way, I don't think the connection to the *idiomatic expression* for "Great!" had occurred to me before. ...regard that connection as fully established -- or should we? I was mostly just speculating, you know; much of what "occurs" to one as "obvious, in hindsight" turns out not to be so obvious at all, but just plain wrong. Anybody know which on-line dictionary to turn to for etymologies of outdated slang expressions? Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #19,032
11/20/01 8:47:50 PM
|
Not sure what you're unsure about. Also: need New Word!
What I can report from childhood memory is that, "That's a Duesy" (perhaps often misspelled as Doozy or other? too young to know that at time) - indeed meant Great! or to translate for our newcomers: Kewl as replaced Rad ... bitchin .. and all the serial attempts to create a new Word-def to own for just one's peer group.
Pretty sure I used it well before realizing it was about That Car - though pretty early on, I did find out about the real Duesys: them was bitchin! (with 19\ufffd gas) {sigh}
Now I'm looking for a New word-def to encapsulate our Renegade Attorney General Ashcroft, as he abrogates new powers to his Exec Group, almost daily. Something perhaps hinting at the ease with which he is also so-far not much opposed in this dismantling of various rights, etc.
Something of the droll casuistry of say,
Satisfiction
(IIRC - someone's typo which rang huge gongs here: possibly it describes the ersatz feeling of having watched infotainment? or had to hear an entire Ad run through? Or bought most any '80s hunk of Detroit Iron? .. or ever believed any single phrase from Redmond - for an entire minute)
So any ideas? - something suggesting duplicity, sanctimony, spin, nefarious sub-plot and overall: disingenuousness via a Patriotic rubric.
Guess I'll post this in Politics forum - everybody loves a Contest. Winner gets: attribution and a free \ufffd
Cheers,
Ashton Linguistics Ltd.
Don't like the sound of 'bad' ?
We'll make it sound like 'good'
|
Post #19,038
11/20/01 9:18:33 PM
|
Ashcroft has at least a temporary setback.
[link|http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Assisted-Suicide.html|NY Times: Oregon.] A federal judge on Tuesday extended a court order that has temporarily blocked a move by the U.S. government to dismantle the nation's only law allowing physician-assisted suicide. Checks and balances in action. Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #19,046
11/20/01 9:46:09 PM
|
The mob is very loud, though. A small step for a man
a giant backwards leap for Muricankind, swaddled in the required Patriot mouthings. Will it work again as it has so often worked?
Will it take a few months, years - a decade? - to unDo it?
We are such babies at self-government -- care to guess how many around you could even ID the Bill of Rights' contents? (the sad test has been done many times)
Stay tuned.
PS - he'll soon end-run around all physicians and kill Med Marijuana next - bet?
Hey Gerard: is he still Da Man? (all misunderstood and unfairly accused of: losing his last election to a dead man?) He did, you know - in MO. Where they *know* who he be. And they be 'conservative of Their Stuff there' too.
A.
|
Post #19,060
11/20/01 10:00:11 PM
|
About whether the idiom *actu-really does* refer to the car.
|
Post #19,068
11/20/01 10:22:55 PM
|
It do: less'n they lied to a little kid :(
|
Post #18,655
11/17/01 9:08:08 PM
|
The real D\ufffdsey --
>Twas in fact thee thyself who er emended my scrofulous error of using Deusy, reminding me 'twas Duesenberg! (least I didn't say, Deusenburg).
::chuckle::
Christian, you should have been able to work that one out; after all it's a German word. D\ufffdsenberg -- and the usual convention of umlaut = letter + e when there aren't any umlauts on the keyboard (there's a reason it was called ASCII)
|
Post #19,025
11/20/01 7:01:34 PM
|
Huh? Of course I did; that may be *why* I could correct him.
|
Post #18,373
11/14/01 10:46:20 PM
|
aaactuually aahm ver found of
mamma has a squeezebox, goin mobile, Im (screw it all of them)
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #18,080
11/13/01 2:02:45 PM
|
But what job is that?
This administration, including As"S"croft[...], has done a very good job during a very difficult time. But what job was that? Ramming through his "agenda"? Yes, nicely done. Being an opportunist and preying on fears of an edgy populace? Would make Billy proud. Defending the Constitution? The worst since Nixon's AG. In true Wag-Ed speak, if you frame the question just so, you can get the answer you seek. Like my dad used to say to me, "if you're so fucking smart, why don't you get elected and change things?" Oh, that's nice...simple platitudes in place of reasoned thinking. OK, smartass, the reason is that I don't have the roughtly $20-$100Million dollars of my own money to buy^H^H^Hrun a campaign. I'm not of the landed gentry class, or the existing ruling class, or the billionaire biznez class necessary to get elected. So, no, you may not suggest the same to me. Besides, this is (on paper, anyway), a republic where we're supposed to have representative government. If the only recourse I have to get our current government to live by its own rules is to "get elected and change things", then we have lost. jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #18,087
11/13/01 2:54:33 PM
|
Huh?
OK, smartass, the reason is that I don't have the roughtly $20-$100Million dollars of my own money to buy^H^H^Hrun a campaign. I'm not of the landed gentry class, or the existing ruling class, or the billionaire biznez class necessary to get elected. You think these guys use their >own< money? And you say "being an opportunist and preying on fear"...pretty damned fine line between that and "reacting to the will of a frightened people" and definitely stated that way because you disagree with it...not because you feel that drastic times may indeed call for drastic measures. Might want to look at the polls son...the average joe doesn't seem to be nearly as pissed off about it as you are...and we can't govern based on outliers. And it appears that your initial premise is still that Ashcroft is an evil man bent on denying the American population of their constitutional rights...regardless of the consequences. The most egregious of these new measures will be tested and probably rejected by the SC, in time...the ACLU et al will make sure of that...just the same way they make sure that inmates have better living conditions than most of the free citizens in our major cities. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,103
11/13/01 3:51:14 PM
|
We should conform to the herd mentality?
>>Might want to look at the polls son...the average joe doesn't seem to be
>>nearly as pissed off about it as you are...and we can't govern based on
>>outliers.
Outliers? You mean like those people who would not "sacrifice essential liberty for a little security"?
Given the choice between the frightened, uneducated masses and Benjamin Franklin, I'll stay with Ben any time, any day, anywhere.
|
Post #18,121
11/13/01 4:26:55 PM
|
Conform?
You're governed by committee. Get used to it. (of >the people<, by >the people<, for >the people<)
You can yell and scream...and when you're right...you'll be heard...because there are others who share your beliefs that, like you, will fight.
BUT...to approach this situation as if Ashcroft is doing this soley because he is some evil, power hungry, rights denying lunatic is just as absurd as expecting that government can operate by acting upon the individual beliefs of its members...and not the collective will.
And I said, the "most egregious of these new measures"...which should, I would hope, translate to you that I don't necessarily agree with them all either.
In much the same vein, I don't agree with all of the policies of the group that will end up having many of these new policies declared unconstitutional.
You need to temper yourself with a bit of reality.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,106
11/13/01 3:54:02 PM
|
And another thing...
I thought you did *NOT* like democracy? NOW you come out in support of "rule of the majority"? Where has this tendency toward democracy been since November 2000?
|
Post #18,116
11/13/01 4:20:34 PM
|
Now >that< was funny.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,134
11/13/01 5:25:38 PM
|
Er Beep: they use *Corporate money*. Umm - get it?
And I suppose it's hard to fault.. waiting for Due-process and the climb to the USSC.
And you are Patient - especially as you wait.. and we wait.. and all wait - for those Market Forces\ufffd to fix Billyco n' the CorpMeeja monopoly n' .. all that stuff. Ahhh.. it's wonderful when folks have stuff they Believe In.
Yup Patience be a virtue alright. (If ya think that entropy and heat death: is a soon enough time frame for one's Model to work within..)
ZZZzzzzzzz glorp Zxzzzzz
:-\ufffd
hell.. Be Patient! for all I care..
|
Post #18,222
11/14/01 9:37:39 AM
|
Uh...yeah...I do
Reality is a pain in the ass, isn't it?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,227
11/14/01 9:55:36 AM
|
If you accept what they hand you, you deserve what you get.
|
Post #18,230
11/14/01 9:58:46 AM
|
Who said anything about blind acceptance?
Follow the bouncing thread./\\./\\./\\
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,238
11/14/01 10:43:50 AM
|
Last was restricted to your "Reality" post.
Saying, "that's Reality" is acceptance.
|
Post #18,239
11/14/01 10:50:08 AM
|
Hardly.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,314
11/14/01 5:25:03 PM
|
Umm.. if this-all really *were*
Reality\ufffd \ufffd \ufffd
Wouldn't that make us all, nothing more than raw material for manufacture of McSoylent$ Green ?
Oh ye of little aspiration
Only fit for for micturation
All Hail! the One True Corporation!
Rue we then, discorporation
Disneyland our Divination!
Solyent Green our destination
The Midas C/Greed
(We got such a good price, we sold it All!)
|
Post #18,445
11/15/01 3:54:16 PM
11/15/01 6:51:55 PM
|
Yer damn RIGHT I think they use their own money!
You think these guys use their >own< money? Yer damn Right!!! Representative from IL 10th district (Mark Kirk) just spent $10MM of his own money to buy^H^H^Hwin election from district. And he was chief-of-staff of retiring incumbent, so he shoulda been a shoe-in (had the incumbent's endorsement an all...). Overall, about $20MM-$23MM (depending on estimate) was spent by candidates in the Repo primary from their own pockets (NOTE: there were 10, count 'em...10, candidates in the primary.) Who was the guy who spent $100MM of own money to buy^H^H^Hrent^H^H^H^Hwin a recent senatorial election? Yeppir..We got us here the best damn guvmint money can buy! And don't act as if this is some sort of surprise. Disingenuousness doesn't fit you well.jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
Edited by jb4
Nov. 15, 2001, 06:51:55 PM EST
|
Post #18,448
11/15/01 4:07:13 PM
|
Ah...so....
...you can show one or 2 examples and think that I'll believe they >all< do that.
Riigghhtt.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,473
11/15/01 6:56:05 PM
|
I'm too lazy to look up link and Name this official fallacy
Another strategic subject change?
But if you're gonna weasel on, "er it's just one or two who BUY their seat" - I think it's a lot more: In CA alone a few elections ago, One Silly Valley sleazoid spent big bux and lost; another ditto and got in. Insurance Commissioner Quackenbush is ex-officio but still in deep legal doo doo. We have the tycoon who just bought election in NY; more waiting - it works so well. One or three? Hardly.
That you Can Buy a seat: is true and also a quite lesser problem than Corporations buying LOTS of seats. This makes the system massively BROKEN, in the particular and in the general. Even the 'personal fortunes' so-called, mostly derive from the Corporate accumulation of most wealth around - and that person's Corp role.
But I guess You could call that: bizness as usual. Right?
(Oh: and, the Market will correct All .. .. given enough .. .. .. t i m e) Right? Not to worry.
{sigh}
Belief is such an Interesting phenomenon.
A.
|
Post #18,478
11/15/01 7:20:42 PM
|
Why me?
I simply point out that not everyone uses their own money and you go off on me again?
Find another target
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,486
11/15/01 8:31:07 PM
|
Because..
(in cartoon showing Sad Sack, a large cloud behind him with a Giant Hand protruding - about to thwack him on back of head.. Deep Voice saying:)
You Piss Me Off....
Nah.
Just trying to avoid what my mater taught me to avoid.
Sorta like.. a foolish consistency is the Hobgoblin of.. something or other
So can't help it - when I see such consistent patterns in otherwise intelligent folk, my early conditioning just kicks in (or to use the jargon most familiar)
How's yer exception handling routine working?
:=\ufffd
(OK - not everybody uses their own money. Now about the ones who use Others' == Corporate money to buy seats ?? Remedies? Give up? False assertion?)
|
Post #18,494
11/15/01 9:41:56 PM
|
All I did...
...if you would have bothered to follow along...is challenge the statement that all candidates used millions of their own money...something that you already know to be true (and so do I)...
And for that, I get launched into about corporate interest in politics...an item which we already discussed...and I already pointed out that I agree with you that it needs to be changed.
In other words...we've had the discussion...no need to bring it up again. If you'ld follow along instead of just reading my posts (keeping with the thread is goot (tm))..then you'd save yourself some typing and me the problem of telling you again that I agree with you already re: campaign financing.
We don't agree in the corporation as the supreme evil...but on that we will probably never even get close.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,495
11/15/01 10:03:50 PM
|
Well___OK___ demi-Supreme Evil then. What - no solutions ??
|
Post #18,496
11/15/01 10:23:39 PM
|
42
oops...that would be the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything...
Don't know if that covers Supreme (or even demi-) evil...I'll have to ask the mice.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,506
11/15/01 11:35:29 PM
|
8\ufffd - It's *always* about Sex, in the End.
|
Post #18,534
11/16/01 9:17:29 AM
|
Challenging a red-herring...how quaint.
And here I thought you passed high-school English. ...if you would have bothered to follow along...is challenge the statement that all candidates used millions of their own money...something that you already know to be true (and so do I)... [emphasis added] Of course not all candidates use their own money. That is self-obvious.....and had that been my original premise, we could have dispensed with this a long time ago. Now let's try debating the actual issue, and not create straw men. Reading is a skill. jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #18,535
11/16/01 9:27:19 AM
|
Nah...
...because I'll post to you and then have to deal with Ashton flying in from left field again.
Besides, we're not horribly far apart on this point...and probably agree almost across the board...
So its not really worth a debate.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,746
11/19/01 9:26:19 AM
|
OK, but as far as a Left Fielder goes...
...Ash is one of the more entertaining (Certainly better than anything the Cubs have come up with in the last...oh, say 2 decades...)
And he's even occasionally enlightening (at least, he makes you think, don't he...)
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #18,474
11/15/01 6:57:08 PM
|
Counterexamples?
I see none.
Unless you're gonna tell me that Joe Schlobtnik of West Bufu, Nebraska was successfully able to win the local dog catcher's race in an uncontested election without spending a dime....
The truth is you wouldn't believe ANYTHING anyone told you if you didn't want to...even if (especially if) it were a verifiable fact.
Nosir, don't bother the Beepster with the facts...might just confuse the boy... would just sully up that oh-so-pristine already-made-up-mind of his, there...
Riigghhtt.
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #18,479
11/15/01 7:22:33 PM
|
Everyone else.
Or are you going to tell me that NOBODY has campaign fundraisers?
No...that would be someone else's tactic.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,532
11/16/01 9:11:28 AM
|
Re: Everyone else.
Bzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Thank you for playing and we have some lovely parting gifts...
I guess everyone else doesn't inclued NYC's new billionaire mayor-elect, now does it?
Your credibility-o-meter is sinking to an all-time low here...You might consider quitting while you still have some.
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #18,537
11/16/01 9:43:14 AM
|
Ok...your obvious counter...
...is that ALL politicians use their own money.
Which is just as.."Bzzzt...wrong answer"
So if you want to have a discussion...then dispense with the rediculous assertions.
I never claimed >all< candidates did NOT use their own money...because some of them actually do.
And out of the lot of them...I probably like those guys BETTER than the ones who take millions from special interests...especially the ones who take money from those special interests and all of a sudden change their position....and way more than the ones who take special interest money just for the money...with no intention of ever listening to that interests point of view.
BUT...special interest money in itself is BAD. The fact that it takes millions to win a state seat is rediculous let alone the amount that it takes to compete in a federal election.
Solution...who the hell knows...start with free and equal access to broadcast media...transportation, etc. And completely eliminate the fundraising tactics used by the RNC and DNC...and limit campaign contibutions to actual money from actual individuals. That would be a start...
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,586
11/16/01 3:57:39 PM
|
Wow! Beep: so ya got the germ of a Solution after all? ;-)
..like pryin teeeth outta a water buffalo, that. Seems you'd rather quote contrary orthodoxy forever - 'provin' it be Correct, than give us a possible Solution (to all the Idiotic stuff you eventually come around to sayin: IS Idiotic!) Kickin an screamin.. Scopes trial over and over and..
{sheesh}
Now.. how does one poison the well of the well-addicted who write the rules for well-drinkin? I mean:
Right. Here. in. River. City.
(Aintcha got no *original ideas* Ay-tall, or is that heretical, automatic-F, in Advanced-Econ courses?)
Ashton Sheesh
|
Post #18,589
11/16/01 4:22:59 PM
|
Actually...
...all of the idiotic things I say are widely held (should I dare say "popular") positions...they're just not "popular" >here<...and especially not with >you<.
Funny that.
And what fun would it be around here if everyone just agreed with each other all of the time?
I don't see anyone >else< offering solutions either...just spouting opposing drivel to counter my own.
btw...to get of econ I had to come up with an original idea....just one...which then had to be beat to death for 50 pages or so;-)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,593
11/16/01 5:39:29 PM
|
OK - it's time to come Clean.
So then.. but er seriously
I can believe you had to come up with one idea, maybe even a few. Don't doubt your credentials or your (basic if somewhat er FOCUSSED) intelligence ;-)
But it seems to my (basic if somewhat less-FOCUSSED) intelligence:
You present your material cut & dried and virtually from some evanescent Model of it all, clearly Believing same to ~"be adequate to the task at hand - Any Task", you imply - regularly (no?) yet:
There appears damn little in this model which is about *&$%@*$ error correcting! except that tired old ... er umm see? The Market Forces will correct.. ... ....
[no time scale deemed remotely important for Theorists]
Now.. just supposing this model might suffer from the limitations of other G.U.T.s hatched yet or embryonic, and thus - it's recursive error-correction can only deal with $$&#*$$ Numerical Errors and Not: with the social and life consequences of deeming the Model to perfectly map the Territory some of us call Life! -
Just presuming this, as a what-if, say: well, that seems to be where the trouble always.. begins. Y'know? :-)
Self-referents to a model which not merely a few question as being real World-related - inevitably shall produce the sorts of counters you natter about. Natter <> Natter both sides. A mercantile model of all life is inherently doomed to suck Planetary-sized chunks of Academic Turgidity: that is a Law of Nature\ufffd. (to use the technical terms you insist upon)
Maybe you have no extra-Model ideas? Maybe you are supremely intra-Model comfy ?? and do not wish to explore any possible omissions, irrelevancies, er just plain self-contained-BS. Then simply: admit your addiction, please. We tolerate alcoholics, Windoze purveyors, Alley-OOP, even the occasional Language-murderer; could the Church of Economists be .. much worse? We understand! {sob} about compulsive behavior.. why there's a 12-step Model near you (!) {uncontrollable sobbing}
(However.. AFAIK: only the Sacred-LRPD \ufffd possesses such obvious Sentience as to deserve That degree of Worship.)
Clearer now?
Ashton
Model-agnostic for the duration.
Theology for the Converted only.
Life: for the ever-skeptical of homo-sap models du jour.
\ufffd
|
Post #18,595
11/16/01 6:05:54 PM
|
I certainly understand >that< aspect...
...in that while you complain about "the box" and wish for us to get outside of "the box"...I continually frustrate you by discussing things from inside "the box".
Could it be that I think "this box" is the right box?
For its flaws and weaknesses...its currently the best "box" to be in?
And so...I focus on making adjustments to "the box".
Would I like to discuss the design of the "better box"? Sure, Ashton, I really would. I would like to discuss how we can create such a box. Many have thought about the creation of that better box...tried and failed. The principle source of that failure is that these "boxers" believed that they could change basic human nature..as long as "the people" could see the promise inherent in the "better box."
So...if you want to hop out of the box Ash...and discuss how we start the revolution...and discuss what it is that we are actually trying to achieve...that would be great.
But the current tactic of pompous disbelief in my position that the current box is not so horrible that it needs to be thrown away outright...with no counterpoint and no offer of discussion of the other options is...well...just as disappointing to me as my positions appear to be to you.
And...as for your >thoughts< on what I believe >market forces< can and cannot do...it is extremely possible that I have made a grave error in assuming that you knew that the >market forces< are actually the cumulative effect of the actions of individual human beings. Individual human beings that I appear to give alot more credit to that you...as I feel that they can impact their own destiny...while you appear to think somewhat less of them...en masse.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,599
11/16/01 8:12:27 PM
|
OK. I see it's about Religious Faith in [Boxes] of any kind.
I'll see what I can do about meta-Boxes, because I might already realize what a meta-Box signifies. Seems you Box-people are likely to do in the entire Golden Goose while... endlessly tinkering with those 20/5 tail lights.. as yer fav [Mindless Numbers]-Box mires actual human beings deeper into the La Brea of [Neatly-Boxed-Results]
o
O
_ 0
_ _ \ufffd
\ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd . . . . . .
_______________
//////////////////////
..sometimes words fail, about Boxes n'Believers.
|
Post #18,601
11/16/01 8:19:32 PM
|
Well since you continually seem to be missing my point...
...why don't you actually give me yours?
Box, socio-political system, organization of the human race on the planet...explain?
How do you propose that the human race save itself, support itself, continue to exist without some formal aspect of commerce and governance?
And if the race does indeed >need< these things to survive...being a social animal...what would you propose to be the ideal system...keeping the pyramid of needs intact and allowing for that pesky human trait called avarice.
Inquring minds do, indeed, want to know.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,613
11/17/01 12:18:50 AM
|
This mini thread
Deserves its own, no?
Assuming it goes further, of course.
-----
Steve
|
Post #18,645
11/17/01 4:29:53 PM
|
Impasse. Future Fork.
Assigned task is self-cancelling.
BeeP appears to think that economic models are the (~ both 'necessary and sufficient'?) tools for making the kinds of overall-life decisions we are seen to use them for.
While I grant their limited utility in keeping track of things like humongous budgets / the 'measurement' of how successfully the Ad campaign is bringing in new money, and several other mercantile concerns - I assert that overreliance upon these models, extrapolation of their 'meaning' way too far across the boundary beyond economics - into the category of "social quality of life" - is a demonstrable (I say Major) cause of the current trend of income distribution: concentration amongst fewer and fewer. Other consequences could fill many books (and have).
I say that - it is not about refining the present model. Again. Numbers cannot measure well (if at all) the egregious social consequences of *ever* mixing pure numerical constructs and real life. (Though the Econ Model, if it's any good - Can continue to provide its limited utility, whatever changes are made to the legal constraints as diminish, correct the growth of monopoly).
BeeP's response to my criticism: ~Show me your better (economic) model (!) Tinker with the Status Quo.. a little more !! {sigh}
I guess the concept of a meta-Model escaped comprehension. Since I don't believe we Can create an *economic model* which could address these orthogonal consequences of All purely economic theory: the condition is unfulfillable.
An economic-mind is a terrible thing to waste. I'll see if I can construct a post-Revolutionary Social Contract. Sometime. Meta-Models are a bit harder than screwing with velocity of money and all those precise-sounding (but familiar!) chestnuts. (You sure as hell can't transcend the inherent limitations of The Economic Model with: The New Economic Model!)
That's how we got where we are today: homogenization, increasing monopolization of all commodity supply, Billys n'Ballys growing like Amanita mushrooms. No represenation for 'workers' - except moving from one Corp to another Corp = same rulez. No healthcare, schools in shambles, prison building a Growth industry, yada yada. Ugliness all around; little commercial boxes all with the Same Logo\ufffd and: The Mall replaces living. (Shopping as life?) Add ones I missed here ____.
E.O.T.(hread) - Need new forum: Rescuing the Murican Social Contact Y2K (from the Economists?)
Ashton
(Never mind; it won't be Popular where it matters - where the Power resides. It Won't be on any ballots Here! Blood first, I suspect.)
|
Post #18,647
11/17/01 4:52:39 PM
|
No...that was NOT my response.
BeeP's response to my criticism: ~Show me your better (economic) model (!) Tinker with the Status Quo.. a little more !! {sigh} That was most decidedly not my response. My challenge was... How do you propose that the human race save itself, support itself, continue to exist without some formal aspect of commerce and governance? I'd say thats as far from "tinkering" with the status quo there is. Thats asking you to explain...(en anglais, s'il vous plait) this >ideal< that you have that you continually >sigh< about me not understanding. Then..we can debate a plan to take us there...or at least debate its possibility of existance. But to continually play the critic to my posts without >EVER< offering any alternative but to *sigh* at my lack of understanding and my decided lack of application of my intellectual capacity is getting pretty fucking old. Lets talk about what >you< want...ok? Thoughts, ambitions, etc...what is it that we are doing wrong that your ideal would make right? What do we need to do to feed everyone, cloth everyone, educate everyone and allow everyone to persue those things wwhcih will keep them happy 24/7/52/100? Until you can offer me an alternative to even discuss...I'd say critiquing my thoughts on how to fix what we have is a tad premature, no? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,650
11/17/01 5:45:25 PM
|
I'll concede your phrasing there. And raise you.
Since it Was your phrasing there. :-)
I'll split the labor with you, of playing Rousseau (Anglais ou Franc\ufffdise, un peu?). I'd think we'd have to ~agree first on the dimensions and some specifics of: what IS 'wrong' / dysfunctional now - before riding off in all philosophical directions toward YAN ---> Utopia. (After having perused the sourcebook on Dystopias, in recent weeks - I know better Why I do not believe in the attainability of Models (always appreciated why that Was folly, just know better Why, now)).
Let's see what Your list of defects is, since you accuse me of assuming you have none. I cannot summarize the general case of The World and All, except as philosophical masturbation. Useless - too high a scale for homo-saps; we lack the referents.
I never imagined you didn't have such a list, just - see your main posts as ever supporting, defending the present schemes and especially: Econ rubrics across the spectrum of their consequences. (Note: that is my impression of the content of many posts, not an opinion of 'what you might actually *think*' = that rarely emerges AFAICR)
Tit for tat, oh weaver of Devils Advocacy from safe neutrality..
Over.
Duplicating this at top, per request above, to escape any possible right-shift: Hey! a few others might have ideas in pretty little heads (?) It's too Big an issue to be left to mere Economists or humble Curmudgeons ;-)
|
Post #60,250
10/30/02 2:00:02 PM
|
Entropy just went up.
And it couldn't have happened to a nicer physicist :-)
Scott: Imma hunt you down and kill you twice for this :)
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #60,307
10/30/02 6:19:36 PM
|
Entropy decreased.
So then.. where were all them Solution Providers and *their* lists?
Do I gotta work it All out fer youse guys? Can lead a horse to manna but..
Conclusion - *nobody has any ideas. Ergo, Entropy is decreased; Answer Unearthed: World of Duality remains in perpetual low-scale psychic noise (that 3\ufffdK (3?) microwave background). Build-from or die-within.
* or is supremely disinterested in offering same == same effect.
Ashton Solution Providers
we provide the trough.
customer must drink.
:-\ufffd
Hint:
"We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they're elected. Don't you?"
"Why?"
"It saves time."
-Terry Pratchett- via Silverlock
|
Post #18,256
11/14/01 12:12:10 PM
|
That's right...
This administration, including As"S"croft (it sounded really fucking juvenile the first time... huh, huh, Bevis - he said ass), has done a very good job during a very difficult time.
Because only the right can criticise a President.
|
Post #18,264
11/14/01 12:53:57 PM
|
Let's let it die...
Both parties do marvelous jobs of ridiculing the others. Let's not politicize the Bill of Rights... it's too important.
You may agree or disagree, but the implication that this administration "hates freedom" more than the Taliban is pure and simply mean spirited left wing garbage. I'll be glad to point out good old fashioned right wing garbage (as I consistently have) when I hear it, thank you very much. Now reread that first post, think, then read mine, think, then read this one, think, then respond.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,282
11/14/01 2:50:59 PM
|
of course...
Both parties do marvelous jobs of ridiculing the others. [...]
In this refrain, I think we both agree. Both parties do a remarkable job.
You may agree or disagree, but the implication that this administration "hates freedom" more than the Taliban is pure and simply mean spirited left wing garbage. I'll be glad to point out good old fashioned right wing garbage (as I consistently have) when I hear it, thank you very much. Now reread that first post, think, then read mine, think, then read this one, think, then respond.
Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. I'm not arguing that the statement wasn't garbage, I'm arguing that the other party made similar statements against/to Democrats. These statements were/are ALSO garbage. Maybe you're also willing to attack right wing garbage. If so, then I'll retract my statement, but *I* haven't seen you do it. As you pointed out in your first post:
If you want to try to pursuade people to vote for your particular brand of slimeball politicians, please find a new marketing ploy...
My point is that this 'marketing' ploy has been in use for quite some time. Hell, if you want to go back to the 1950's, you'll find that McCarthy was a right-wing wacko who went off all on his own. In more recent times, you'll find additional "pure and mean spirited garbage" all over the place - up to and including a recent post that argued an ex-President said "We deserved to be attacked". Now...you come along and argue that these attacks shouldn't be allowed. I tend to agree with you, with the stipulation that neither side should be allowed to attack like this. Clinton may have used this type of attack as his "modus operandi"...but then again, he often also was/is the victim of this type of attack.
|
Post #18,311
11/14/01 5:11:47 PM
|
In the immortal words of Rodney King...
"Can't we all just get along". It truly is one of my favorite quotes.
I haven't been railing on the Repos much lately 'cause I've had the TV pretty much tuned to Nickleodian (young one at home - Sponge Bob Square Pants rocks though!). Having admitted that, I also don't feel the need as much with the "right wing" as all anyone needs to do in this country to see how full of shit those folks can be is to turn on talk radio. Kind of like, why bother to make fun of clowns? They're supposed to be funny... I think?
In my perspective, liberals and conservatives are both necessary to make good decisions. A sort of check and balance system. A while back, I posted the definition of both and kind of admitted that I am both and not truly either one. In any case, no argument remains in me on this thread. I've pissed off my quota for the week!
Peace...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,313
11/14/01 5:14:19 PM
|
Where's my 11 million?
Oh...that wasn't it?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #18,090
11/13/01 3:08:30 PM
|
I've been immersed in my own work lately
Then we have the remarkable gutting of the constitution by Bush's attack dog Asscroft in order to "get the tools" to fight terrorism.
What gutting of the constitution by Ashcroft are you referring to?
Gerard Allwein
|
Post #18,094
11/13/01 3:17:10 PM
|
expanded wire tapping, detention without charges
and others.
One of the bills is known as the [link|http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hr2975terrorismbill.pdf|PATRIOT] act.
How to mangle the truth;
Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
|
