Post #41,582
6/7/02 4:11:05 PM
|
It can never be...
...that simple with you, can it?
Here we have jb4 making sure to continue the illusion that this was the doing of shrub/asscroft et al...so I bother to point out that this was all done in the spirit of "bipartisan" politics.
I also bother to point out that there is NOTHING NEW in the proposal.
And I'm greeted with another Ashton screed about the "evuls" of everything.
Hint...
Theres NOTHING NEW in the proposal.
It is >bizness as usual< inside the beltway.
And yes thats a >bad thing< tm.
Let's just make sure we understand that they are >all< in on it, k?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,587
6/7/02 4:54:41 PM
|
Er.. 'irony' means
Your message of Demorat participation was noted.
Just thought I'd find out the extent to which 'Efficiency' as an aim: cancels out all further inspection of motives and future use of the new 'synergy'.
Ah.. so you ~ agree on >bad< as a suitable description..
Kewl.
Just checkin-in, since it's not always clear whether yer defendin stuff - or have just become reconciled to certain stuff's inevitability.
Ashton
er, why IS it that.. this kinda stuff is? inevitable? Plain sloth + current marketing of fear - izzat it? (We ain't smart enough for it to be a Conspiracy.)
|
Post #41,594
6/7/02 5:59:35 PM
|
So..Republicans are "bad" and Democrats are "good"?
So if a Democrat supports a plan, that plan can't be "bad"?
Or a plan is "good" if both Republicans and Democrats support it?
Didn't we go through this right after the attack with the passage of the "PATRIOT" bill?
Ah, I see. You're still limited to "Republicans good" and "Democrats bad".
Some of us are not limited to that. Some of us can see that BOTH sides can support bad laws.
I do not expect you to be able to understand this.
|
Post #41,602
6/7/02 7:20:40 PM
|
Are you that big of an idiot?
Let's just make sure we understand that they are >all< in on it, k? Was that statement too advanced for you??? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,605
6/7/02 7:39:39 PM
|
In case you are...
...I should also quote the previous 2 sentences... It is >bizness as usual< inside the beltway.
And yes thats a >bad thing< tm. There. Should be simple enough for >even< you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,632
6/8/02 2:01:09 AM
|
I'm still not following your "logic".
You say: Let's just make sure we understand that they are >all< in on it, k?
Was that statement too advanced for you??? Hardly. Well, the statement itself isn't. Buy your "logic" behind it leaves something to be desired. Like logic. Or do you believe that just because you can get Democrats and Republicans to support an issue, it is a "good" thing? Or are you saying that they will be equally to blame for doing something "bad"? Why are you focusing on who is supporting an issue rather than the issue itself? Hmmmmmm?
|
Post #41,635
6/8/02 10:44:48 AM
|
I guess you are.
Why are you focusing on who is supporting an issue rather than the issue itself? Play..."Follow the dancing thread" up to jb4's post. The one that I was responding to before you started the patented "bepatient bash" You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,638
6/8/02 11:07:48 AM
|
Ummm, remember, you are the one with the memory problem.
I did follow the thread. Allow me to refresh your memory.
Here is where you started pointing out who is supporting it.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41563|Here]
Need another?
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41588|Here]
So, I think I've established that you are focusing on WHO is SUPPORTING this issue rather than the issue itself.
Which is what I asked you in this post:
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41632|Here]
So, you're not focusing on who is supporting the issue because everyone saying that Bush is bad for supporting it but it was the Democrats who supported it.
Nice use of "logic" there.
|
Post #41,639
6/8/02 11:22:11 AM
|
I should learn to expect this..
...from you.
Up one more post....thats a good boy...you'll see where jb takes a stab at GW...I just wanted him to be aware that it was essentially good old >no work on Saturday< Joe's deal.
Thats all.
Then you decided to jump in and make yourself look foolish.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,647
6/8/02 1:41:42 PM
|
So you're changing your story?
Since I linked to your earlier posts, which do seem to support my statements, you say that a post after your earlier posts contradicts my statements?
But they're all your posts.
So, a post from you contradicts another post from you and it's MY problem?
|
Post #41,654
6/8/02 4:54:08 PM
|
Brandioch's IQ strikes a new low.
you say that a post after your earlier posts contradicts my statements? I did? Isn't this where I say (a la Planet Brandioch) that you are lieing about my position? Or do you need a lesson in what "up one more" means in a threaded discussion? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,660
6/8/02 5:17:46 PM
|
Let's take this chronologically, shall we?
I start this thread. jp4 posts about the USStazi. You post "This was not Bush's idea. This was the idea of the Democrats." Ashton follows your post. You follow with: "Here we have jb4 making sure to continue the illusion that this was the doing of shrub/asscroft et al...so I bother to point out that this was all done in the spirit of "bipartisan" politics." Was it? Let's see what you say about that. You claim that this plan was voted on before Bush. "Recommendation BEFORE Bush. All 9 D versus all 7 R" Yet that wasn't THIS plan, was it? You say: "Closer to Lieberman's proposal" Yes, note the word CLOSER. So the vote you claim happened did NOT happen regarding the plan that is being suggested by Bush. Which was what your ORIGINAL point was. [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41563|Aren't you forgetting one little inconvenient fact...] This was not Bush's idea. This was the idea of the Democrats.
|
Post #41,667
6/8/02 6:26:40 PM
|
Poor baby just can't seem to get it right.
Duh-beyew, your Freudian Slip is showing....! That was what prompted my response to jb4. The rest is you stretching trying to make some kind of point to win an argument that you started about something that has nothing to do with my point. Got it? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,704
6/9/02 2:25:13 AM
|
Oh, I get it.
I have just ripped your position to shreds by pointing out that the plan which you CLAIMED was previously voted upon and proposed by Democrats IS NOT THE PLAN WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING DISCUSSED.
Do you really need me to link to your posts about how two Republicans didn't vote for the OTHER plan?
You're just mad 'cause you've been caught AGAIN with another of your memory problems.
|
Post #41,730
6/9/02 2:11:26 PM
|
Ah...semantics.
You're just mad 'cause you've been caught AGAIN with another of your memory problems. I'm actually rather amused at this. You seem to think I give a shit about the sematics. Bush and Leiberman...sittin in a tree...la dee da... Yep...I guess you've got me...this EXACT plan isn't the one that Lieberman proposed. Its just "pretty close"..in his own words. Very close to Hart/Rudman...in >your< words. Yes Brandioch..in your world where the actual semantics actually >mean< something...I guess you are right. Since you like the semantics game...it was actually 7 Republicans that voted against the plan. Get it right. Or is 9-7 too hard for you? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,736
6/9/02 3:11:03 PM
|
No semantics.
Very close to Hart/Rudman...in >your< words. If by "Very close" you mean "not at all close" then you are right. Or did you miss the part where I quoted a paragraph from them and pointed out that what Bush's plan was was the exact OPPOSITE? You seem to think I give a shit about the sematics. No. I think you don't understand semantics. Yep...I guess you've got me...this EXACT plan isn't the one that Lieberman proposed. Its just "pretty close"..in his own words. And "pretty close" means what? 169,000 people? How many would Lieberman's plan have required? Ah, once again, you're focusing on who is supporting a plan rather than what the plan says.
|
Post #41,737
6/9/02 3:25:12 PM
|
Whatever
I guess Lieberman doesn't understand it either.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,754
6/9/02 5:19:35 PM
|
[Contest!] ___ Such 'plans' are not Meant to be understood,
they are intended just to comfort with slogans about "theSafetyoftheMuricanPeepul", no matter how ineffectively. Ignoring the ever-unwanted side effects all around, is relatively easy for a theologically-motivated Admin such as this one proves to be, on its record. (There's a certain fatalism which appears to comfort o'erweeningly, those who imagine Gawd Be on Our Side; so never mind actually Thinking about root causes n'such - y'know?)
Some may think that Gawd will work out the division between C\ufffdsar |and| Her, as in, not-to-worry.. Others prefer retention of the Constitutional separation of personal fanciful musings and The State.
I wonder why it is that, Republicrats (Democans?) so frequently manage to come up with proposals which insult the intelligence of a guinea hen - meanwhile it's coming up on 7 months since the dastardly deed. Has this all just been paralysis by analysis?
[Contest!]
C'mon BeeP: craft us a workable Plan already! - enough of these amateur Pols with eyes on the Prize. We need something Clever AND Constitutional, and with some vague chance of actually allowing *individual intelligence* to aid effective noticing of weirdness which suggests malevolence. And a means for separating-out the inevitable cockamamie Alarmists from.. the shrewdly Observant folk. (Hey, it's OK if it is also Economically feasible too ;-)
Trying to spell-out in great detail, what we are supposed to be vigilant about is to: focus on the box-cutters and airplanes as if...
So.. how do we legislate the umm "unleashing of Native American Intelligence" with the words Democrat- Republican- completely eliminated from the prose?
[/Contest]
Ashton
|
Post #41,784
6/10/02 12:15:22 AM
|
Mental...
gamesmanship, eh?
Craft us a plan that would make those thoughtful Americans actually notice a bomb being constructed next door...without actually having someone invade their "personal space".
Rationally explain how you can defend against the irrational...and while your at it...solve World Peace(tm).
Is time travel an alternative?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,787
6/10/02 1:02:56 AM
|
So then perhaps you even agree (!)
That there *is no plan* which could reliably (80%? 90%? but are those Good enough for a nuke?) 'prevent' the aberrrant homo-sap from striking, since: no one could possibly list infinite possibilities [??]
(Creating a locked-down fascist State is not a viable option, we see.)
OK - if that's the case, then we may have no alternative to learning how to effectively address the root causes, once there's a certain semi-agreement upon the first 25, say. Where no defense is possible, 'offense' is not the only response, even if it is the automatic one.
Alas, this would prove much more difficult than - throwing techno amd LOTS of $$$ at the selected target du jour, and pretending that escalated violence will lead to anything other than: further escalated violence.
Will we have to go to this mode only AFTER the first really hideous next event? History suggests: yes. Most sadly. (Unless.. something New occurs in the perennial Israel/Palestine madness -- which points a direction for defuzing our own position as well ??)
Some homo-saps had best devise Something New soon, and before India/Pakistan events produce that panic which leads to *spasm war. It's a time to wish that we had a few wise people near that button - but we don't. Just Pols, inarticulate ones at that.
* \ufffd Hermann Kahn, eons ago.
Ashton
Nope, don't see a plan that ain't the Same-old same old.. random acts of bestiality - anywhere.
|
Post #41,797
6/10/02 2:14:59 AM
|
Two options.
Or is it three?
#1. Attempt to solve it via root cause.
#2. Continue with the same plan that has failed for how many years?
#3. Surrender our freedoms with the knowledge that we're still not doing anything to stop them?
Personally, if we can't stop them, I'd feel better facing death with my freedoms intact.
I'd hate to end up fighting both the terrorists AND my government.
|
Post #41,868
6/10/02 5:24:51 PM
|
Precisely. Agreed.
As to #3:
(Even I..) believe that Murica ain't so universally ovine that an inexorable tide towards a Security Theocracy could proceed as slickly as - those with the brains of a Dubya, a Cheney or an Ashcroft (obviously) suppose.
I have no illusions of belonging to "a plurality" - but I have no doubt whatsoever that - I represent a minority which is neither small nor unmotivated.
The rationale for actual anti-Government *action* resides firmly in the wording of the Constitution; that is phrased not as an 'option' but as a Duty: whenever a government has committed actions which are prohibited in that Constitution. 'My Group\ufffd' would be a subset (superset?) of those who have read this document with comprehension and recognize what 'Duty' might mean.
Of course, were this to be an actual next development: nobody could tell the form which such action might take. But - as you say - for me and mine:
Option #3 can be dismissed in the Elder Bush-speak (with the characteristic language mauling of the entire Prescott Bush clan):
This Will Not Stand
(He meant the didactic 'Shall' connotation - in other than first-person usage - but then.. he just read it somewhere, and still: got it Wrong.)
Aux armes! mes amis
Better Dead than Unread and Illegible
|
