And so it begins. Barack Obama lost one primary -- one -- and already the left is playing the race card. What's telling, of course, is that this isn't against some "Nazi, fascist, Hitler" (read anyone who believes in low taxes and a strong America) but Hillary and Bill (also known as America's "first black president.")
In a recent piece about how I thought the primaries would play out I said that only one thing was guaranteed: "if Obama wins the leftists will yell "sexism" and if Clinton wins the Democrats will yell 'racism.'" It took exactly three days. Maybe it's time for Hillary to cry again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
210 comments:
1 – 200 of 210 Newer› Newest»Hey Evan,
So glad you are back to blogging regularly again! Your observation is, of course, absolutely correct--the Democrats' slavish devotion to pure identity politics is as steadfast as their allegiance to whatever action, policy or candidate is worst for America.
But I thought you would appreciate me pointing out that it actually didn't take an Obama loss in New Hampshire for the Leftists to play the race card. Please check out this ridiculous article on the website of a group called Afrospear ("A Think Tank For People of African Descent"):
Obama Win Doesn't Mean Racism Lost
http://afrospear.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/obama-win-doesnt-mean-racism-lost/
Here's a quote:
"To make the assertion that racism is on the wane because white people voted to make Barack Obama their primary choice for the Democratic caucus in Iowa ranks right up there with the notion that racism is dead because white people like to watch Oprah. The idea that this proves that the majority of white people would support their black neighbors is rather imprudent and irresponsible."
So, Obama lost in NH because of racism. AND the idea that "racism is on the wane" just because Obama won in Iowa is "imprudent and irresponsible." See a pattern? Racism if Obama loses. Racism if he wins.
Ironically, Afrospear's position makes the other Liberals alleging racism seem downright reasonable. At least they waited until Obama ACTUALLY LOST a primary before denouncing America as a racist society.
Identity politics is the only game these idiots are capable of. Just look to your trolls for confirmation of that!
Meanwhile, the Republicans take a different approach, they drift to the real world of accomplsihments...
The match is almost perfect. As the surge in Iraq has succeeded, the presidential campaign of John McCain has risen from the ashes. This is no coincidence, and the message is simple and unmistakable. The surge is now a powerful force in American politics. In the jargon of the 2008 presidential race, it's a game-changer.
The surge effect is the result of gains in Iraq well beyond the most optimistic dreams of the surge's advocates. The American military, led by General David Petraeus, has under-promised and over-delivered. Violence has dropped precipitously. So have attacks on Americans and combat deaths. Baghdad has been virtually secured, al Qaeda crushed, and sectarian bloodshed significantly reduced. Provinces once controlled by insurgents are scheduled to be turned over to well-trained Iraqi forces, starting with Anbar in the spring. The war, in short, is being won.
"if Obama wins the leftists will yell "sexism" and if Clinton wins the Democrats will yell 'racism.'"
How original. Really. I haven't heard this anywhere else. *eye roll*
As the surge in Iraq has succeeded
Succeeded? Succeeded in what?
Classic Evan Sayet nonsense. Because one or two writers, somewhere in the blogosphere, said something about racism (writings to which Evan doesn't even bother linking to), that means that "the left" is playing the race card. Hell, for all I know it's Chris Matthews idle speculating that he's referring to, because according to a blowhard like Evan, Matthews must be of "the left" because he's part of the mainstream media and not, you know, writing diatribes to the dregs of the echo chamber in the backwaters of the internet. Take what one or two people say, extrapolate that out to everyone on the political left, and your work as a right-wing pundit is now done. Intelligent, thoughtful discussion need not apply.
Succeeded? Succeeded in what?
Why don't you ask Eeyore. He says we lost something.
Because one or two writers, somewhere in the blogosphere, said something about racism (writings to which Evan doesn't even bother linking to), that means that "the left" is playing the race card.
84,700 hits for "Obama" and "race card".
Hell, for all I know...
Is that supposed to be some form of indictment of others?
Intelligent, thoughtful discussion need not apply.
Fools who go out of their way to mock and impugn the motives of others not only make the above impossible but also make for tiresome company.
The way I see the Iraq War is like a patient goes in for surgery for something that was not life-threatening but would be beneficial for the patient.
The surgery goes horribly, horribly wrong and the patient is on the brink of death in intensive care.
The patient improves slightly, and comes out of the coma, but is still very very ill, much more ill than he was before the surgery. And the rightwing is screaming "omg, the surgery was a succes, why aren't you planning the physical therapy? Why do you want him to die?"
Is it wanting the patient to die to point out that the surgery was not a success, that the patient is still ill, and if taken off his drugs and tubes and IVs, he might very well still die? To ask, why did the patient get this surgery at all, considering the risks?
"Is it wanting the patient to die to point out that the surgery was not a success, that the patient is still ill, and if taken off his drugs and tubes and IVs, he might very well still die? To ask, why did the patient get this surgery at all, considering the risks?"
No. Wanting the patient to die is telling the family members that the still-living patient is already dead, that there is no possibility of resuscitation and asking them to sign the forms that will make it official so that they can pull the tubes and IVs to ensure that death occurs.
What does this have to do with the playing of the "racism" and/or "sexism" card? You "rolled your eyes" and criticized the issue's lack of originality, but what is your opinion? That the race/sex card has not been played? That it has been played but is inconsequential? That race/sex has appropriately been raised as an issue since the NH primary?
How GOPigs Run Campaigns...Rove speaks with transparent racial codewords to his army of Rep Bigots...
Of the Rove editorial, Wolffe stated, "Talking to some of Obama's aides, I think they detected a pretty ugly undertone in Rove's op-ed there. The 'trash-talking.' The 'basketball.' The 'lazy' thing. Is he suggesting that there's some sort of color aspect to Barack Obama's behavior that he's getting at? It was uncomfortably close to the edge of being plain-out racist."
The racist slant of Rove's op-ed has already been widely noted among bloggers, with one of the more vehement writing, "When you take into consideration the malevolent genius of Karl Rove - The god damned Johnny Appleseed of fear harvesting - and understand that the higher echelon of the Republican base is being spoon-fed a concoction that consists of a feminist-socialist lesbian wife of a shill president or a lazy, jive-talking, b-ball playing huckster boy politician from Chicago ... Rove's ability to triangulate issues and interweave them with subtle strereotypical imagery would be fun to read if it was fiction. Unfortunately in real life, the fat master has stirred and is testing the waters to see if his style of politics still plays."
What does this have to do with the playing of the "racism" and/or "sexism" card? You "rolled your eyes" and criticized the issue's lack of originality, but what is your opinion? That the race/sex card has not been played? That it has been played but is inconsequential? That race/sex has appropriately been raised as an issue since the NH primary?
I think that it's not possible to not the issue, and I think no matter how the dems play it, Reps will always criticize them for "playing the sex/race card."
And shouldn't it be played? 17% of people polled on Facebook said that a woman cannot be as effective a president as a man. And these are young, modern people being polled. Should hillary not address this issue at all? You think race and sex aren't issues in this campaign?
In a recent piece about how I thought the primaries would play out I said that only one thing was guaranteed: "if Obama wins the leftists will yell "sexism" and if Clinton wins the Democrats will yell 'racism.'" It took exactly three days.
That's an easy guarantee to make since you know in advance that the GOP has already been playing those cards...as in the use of terms like Barrack Hussein Obama by certain really vile and obnoxious right wing bloggers. What you're really saying is that the left will, of course, and as they should, call you on your filth. And it only took three days?! Why were they so slow?
At least they waited until Obama ACTUALLY LOST a primary before denouncing America as a racist society.
Of course, they aren't saying that America is a totally racist society, but that racism still exists in a significant way...and only the racists -- who as usual protest FAR too much in their usual knee jerk defensive way -- would deny it.
At the risk of veering into a digression, the Iraq War was fought to depose Husseins regime, to guard against the fears that Democrats warned us against, that a miscalculating Saddam would strengthen his common cause with Al Qaeda and slip them nukes or other WMDs from the nuclear arsenal he was purportedly trying to amass. Clinton went as far as to make "Regime Change" our official policy towards Iraq. After 17 arab terrorists practically brought the world to a halt on 9-11 and plunged us into a global recession with one act of terrorism using boxcutters, the idea of an openly aggressive enemy like Saddam making convincing noises like he was going to continue to flout 17 UN resolutions and try to rebuild an aresenal of WMD's, became unacceptable to the leaders of this nation and they exercised their sworn duty which was to protect our national security. It may have been an unnecessary move by the Bush administration, (we'll never actually know since in Bushes 15 month "rush to war" Saddam had plenty of time to offload the most damning stuff to Syria) but Saddam will undoubtedly go down in gambling annals as having pulled the worst and most disastrous bluff in history.
It's impossible to imagine an alternate history (but Democrats do anyway) but can the Left at least be honest and admit how they practically rioted in Congress for the opportunity to vote and show their support for invasion of Iraq? Then from the luxury of a world relieved of the threat of bellicose and dangerous Saddam, they began to second guess and begin calculating exactly how they could benefit from what could only be deemed a victory by Bush..and that explains of course the next 3 years of carping and prevaricating and finally amnesia about their own role.
To be honest Bush certainly did underestimate the attention span and good will of the American people as to how long the video game mentality populace would be able to countenance the long and sopmetimes depressing drudgery of keeping the peace after we obliterated their government, but in any other parallel universe, installing a democratically elected parliament, President and Constitution in a former dictatorship are typically events which guarantee an American Presidents legacy as a successful one. In that same universe, Democrats to whom human rights concerns usually trump all others are cheering on a leader who moved to stop the systematic torture abuse and murder of tens of thousands of Iraqis and bring democracy to them.
History will judge Bush well on this one.
Poor Farmer says: "...the real world of accomplishments"
You almost have to feel sorry for the desperate, deluded weaklings still clinging to their dream of a permanent Republican majority. If Iraq was to achieve stability and self gov today...and it is years and maybe a civil war away from that...it would STILL be one of the great crimes and catastrophes of world history.
Kreps Rationalizer gives us a really silly rewrite of history:
The actual reasons for invading Iraq were well advertised by the sophomoric PNAC flakes for years before the attack took place...it had NOThING to do with sadistic dictators...they love them and support them all over the place...they hold hands and smooch with them in public...it has nothing to do with WMDs...it had to do with what they said it had to do with ...their inane dreams of the US dominating the globe for the next century...an enlightened Fourth Reich, as they saw it. Fortunately it's lasted as long as its predecessor.
Hi Dora,
Well, if by "it's not possible to not [raise] the issue," you mean that as long as there are race and/or gender differences between the candidates it must necessarily be part of the discussion simply as a matter of demographics, then I would agree with you. However, I don't see that type of discussion as "playing the race (or sexism) card."
I see "playing the race (or sexism) card" as making the argument that a candidate lost votes BECAUSE OF their membership in a minority classification--e.g., voters supporting Hillary because they won't vote for a black man purely because of the color of his skin, or voters supporting Obama solely because they won't vote for a candidate that has a uterus, no matter what her policies are.
I certainly believe that there are people voting for Obama solely because he is black (we certainly haven't heard much of substance) and there are people voting for Hillary solely because she's female, but that's just identity politics, not racism or sexism. A vote for Hillary because she is a woman is not a racist vote against "the black candidate." Nor is a vote for Obama because he's black a sexist vote against Hillary. I object to the "race (or sex) card being played" when the argument is that there are scores of votes out there that the candidate WOULD HAVE RECEIVED BUT FOR his or her race or sex and its effect on the voters.
As for whether Hillary should "address the issue" of people who believe a woman cannot be as effective a President as a man, she can best address the issue by refraining from addressing it at all. If she wants the job, she has to prove she can be an effective President, period. But she's the one (with the assistance of her husband) who continues to highlight her gender whenever she's backed into a corner.
The surgery goes horribly, horribly wrong... only because half the surgical team immediatelt started proclaiming that the patient had expired and that they were tricked into gowning up.
To ask, why did the patient get this surgery at all, considering the risks? Why not ask John Kerry and Hillary Clinton? They more than seconded the attending physicians diagnosis.
"What you're really saying is that the left will, of course, and as they should, call you on your filth. And it only took three days?! Why were they so slow?"
"Of course, they aren't saying that America is a totally racist society, but that racism still exists in a significant way...and only the racists -- who as usual protest FAR too much in their usual knee jerk defensive way -- would deny it."
Elitegal,
So, I take it you believe Obama's loss in NH was the result of GOP racist "filth," and the fact that "racism still exists in a significant way?" Do you believe that in the absence of racism, Obama would have won?
The racist slant of Rove's op-ed has already been widely noted among bloggers...
Like you said, Evan, the race card is all they've got!
Tellinkly tellink is the lunatic projection ... the whole GOP is one big IDENTITY machine...the white man, bigot, (pseudo)patriot, matriarchical, goofball religious people...and that's why you should vote for us...we tell you it's alright to be all of those nasty things which the elitist left has been telling you are bad. It's alright to be that kind of oinker and you should be proud of that so vote for us and we'll make it cool. Well, they pulled it off for a while...now it aint so cool anymore...they exposed their ugly, unwashed asses too long to too many people and America loathes them for it. Hallyloo
Barrack Hussein Obama
That's the religion card. Conservatives get to play that one. We took our cues in learning to play the identity politics game from the Civil Rights movement. But then, it's only vile and obnoxious when Republicans play it. ;-)
So, I take it you believe Obama's loss in NH was the result of GOP racist "filth," and the fact that "racism still exists in a significant way?" Do you believe that in the absence of racism, Obama would have won?
No, I'm actually coming at it from a somewhat different angle...I don't think we saw much of that...remember, this is a primary with Democrat voters...that sort of thing happens on a large scale only in the general election where the reactionaries play a bigger part. There are some astounding discrepancies, however, in this election and a recount is needed and warranted.
If Iraq was to achieve stability and self gov today...
Nope. It was to keep it off the Osama team... a direction which it seemed at the time to be headed (I don't think Saddam liked us even BEFORE Gulf War I)
jackofasses says it's only religious bigotry...no, it's racist and it tries to tie Obama to terrorism...and you can play it if you're stupid enough to play it...be my guest...people are sick enough of you already...please make it terminal
Of course, they aren't saying that America is a totally racist society, but that racism still exists in a significant way...and only the racists -- who as usual protest FAR too much in their usual knee jerk defensive way -- would deny it.
Deny it, and you're a racist! Go ahead, deny it!
The actual reasons for invading Iraq were well advertised by the sophomoric PNAC flakes...
The PNAC Conspiracy...ooooohhhh!
How dare those vile Neocons try and develop a coherent foreign policy that wasn't UN centric and funded by Left Wing kooks like Ted Turner?
PNACbrain says: How dare those vile Neocons try and develop a coherent foreign policy that wasn't UN centric and funded by Left Wing kooks like Ted Turner?
yeah, that's what they were doing...straw men straw men...that's all these pussies can tangle with. Hey, gang, lessgo out and dominate the world by force if necessary...duh...that's soooo second century, don't you think? Flakey nerds dreaming of Bismarckian/ Alexandian glories in sophomore history...and they never grew out of it.
There are some astounding discrepancies, however, in this election and a recount is needed and warranted.
HAD to be dirty tricks. The polls never lie (or fail to tell the complete story). We was ROBBED by whitey AGAIN!
It's a CONS-PEER-O-SEE I tell you!
Yep,
Wrapping the world in red tape and unenforced laws is a much easier way of stealing the third world anyway. No force needed. Just lots and lots of lies like LOST, global warming and that international laws are worth more than the cheap paper they're written on.
I love how leftists "think." Rove speaks in "codewords." Of course, who can break that code? The leftist who has predetermined that Rove is a racist. How do they know? Because he speaks in code.
If Rove says "good morning" that's secret code for "I hate blacks."
Meanwhile, who really hates black? Democrats. They're the ones who say that anyone who doesn't do drugs, doesn't speak ebonics and hasn't been in jail isn't "authentically" black. In fact, the notion pushed by the Democrats is that Barack isn't "black enough" because he actually married the woman he impregnated. Jesse Jackson, now HE'S an "authentic black."
Obama pretty much believes that himself as evidenced in his autobiographical confessional... "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . ."
love how leftists "think." Rove speaks in "codewords." Of course, who can break that code? The leftist who has predetermined that Rove is a racist. How do they know? Because he speaks in code.
Automaton pretending he really doesn't know.
Haha...Yeah, and here he is putting imaginary words into imaginary liberal's mouths that they never said.
Robot croaks..."Meanwhile, who really hates black? Democrats. They're the ones who say that anyone who doesn't do drugs, doesn't speak ebonics and hasn't been in jail isn't "authentically" black. In fact, the notion pushed by the Democrats is that Barack isn't "black enough" because he actually married the woman he impregnated. Jesse Jackson, now HE'S an "authentic black."
"jackofasses says it's only religious bigotry...no, it's racist and it tries to tie Obama to terrorism...and you can play it if you're stupid enough to play it."
So, Rove wrote a column in racist code-speak (making reference to him playing basketball AT HARVARD) and the candidate's actual middle name is now out of the bag and is a GOP conspiracy to tie Obama to terrorism?
Doesn't that mean that it's the Democrats who are either racist (because thanks to Rove, the Democrat voters somehow found out Obama is black), or stupid (falling for the idea that having the middle name "Hussein" means one thing--TERRORISM!), or both? Aren't Democrats strong enough and smart enough to resist voting against Obama for racist reasons simply because Rove managed to hypnotize them into doing it?
As you KNOW...when Rove uses lazy, trash talking and basketball in close proximity it is code for simple minded racists, pure and simple...
Aren't Democrats strong enough and smart enough to resist voting against Obama for racist reasons simply because Rove managed to hypnotize them into doing it?
Democrats will resist, but Rove is looking ahead to the swing voters in the general who are notoriously flakey. NO, it does not mean dems are the racists...that hasn't sold for you forever and gets more boring every time you repeat it. As for the Hussein thing, it is irrelevant, so there's only one reason to make a point of it and we know what that is.
If you play Karl Rove's speech backwards, it sounds like he says that Obama is the devil...
Course it sounds better if you do a doobie first.
As for the Hussein thing, it is irrelevant, so there's only one reason to make a point of it and we know what that is.
To remind everyone that Obama's black?
Shhhhh. If WE didn't remind them, they'd quickly forget! We all know that Baruk and Shrillary aren't going to tell them!
btw - Did you know that Bill Richardson was a Hispanic?
...and no Democrats are going to mention it...cuz they would NEVER play the race card
iamwomanhearmeroar said...
As for the Hussein thing, it is irrelevant, so there's only one reason to make a point of it and we know what that is. To remind everyone that Obama's black?
Watta dumass. It's the association is with Saddam Hussein, fool.
"Democrats will resist, but Rove is looking ahead to the swing voters in the general who are notoriously flakey."
Oh, now I see where this is going. If those "flaky swing voters" end up helping to elect a Republican candidate, then they are slack-jawed fools who were blinded by Rove's crafty, subliminal, racist code-speak and were stupid enough to be tricked into voting for the "wrong" candidate. If they end up supporting/electing a Leftist candidate, then they are super-geniuses standing up to the GOP's evil, racist, sexist, homophobic...(fill in the blank)...shenanigans. Does that about cover it? It certainly explains why we haven't even gotten through the primary season without a Democrat calling for a recount based on undisclosed and unspecified "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors." (Oooooooooh!) Because, afterall, some people voted for the "wrong" candidate! That's the ONLY explanation! Those stupid voters were tricked!
The thing that bothers Leftists most is not Rove or even the GOP. What really ticks them off is democracy itself.
Speaking of campaigning, do you thing the landslide will bury the GOP even deeper with the coming recession? How do you see your losses, and do you think the GOP will survive the Rove era? I think the party will shatter into what we might call a honkies/trailer trash/bigot wing and a corporate wing looking for some way to fool enough people again to gain back power...which will take decades.
Just saw Sean's comments...I think they'll be slack jawed fools either way they vote...in fact the contest is to see who can get the most slack jawed fools...though this year, we'd win without them...even including the very strange 25% who still support GW.
"I think the party will shatter into what we might call a honkies/trailer trash/bigot wing and a corporate wing looking for some way to fool enough people again to gain back power...I think they'll be slack jawed fools either way they vote...in fact the contest is to see who can get the most slack jawed fools..."
It's no surprise to hear a leftist cavalierly describe (his idea of) large groups of fellow Americans in such crude and cartoonish terms. (What? No baby-killer/burn-villages/military wing? Or do soldiers fall somewhere under the trailer trash/bigot classification?)
The Left obscenely preaches its devotion to the "little guy" and the protection of (their idea of) "individuals" against evil corporate and government corruption--but then they show their true colors and what they really think of real people. They see millions of Americans as just a bunch of idiots in fly-over country who can't think for themselves and exist solely for the purpose of being exploited. Of course, they are incapable of entertaining the existence of anyone who (WHAT?!) simply disagrees with them and has a reasonable and good faith basis for doing so.
There's a name for people who see everyone else as either worthless scumbags or insolent fools. They're called elitists.
It's no surprise to hear a leftist cavalierly describe (his idea of) large groups of fellow Americans in such crude and cartoonish terms.
There's a name for people who see everyone else as either worthless scumbags or insolent fools. They're called elitists.
Hopefully the irony of posting these particular points on a site which states in its banner "Instead it leads the Modern Liberal to INVARIABLY and INEVITABLY side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success." isn't lost on you. But I fear it probably is.
Exactly, Laugh,I was thinking exactly that...the modern liberal is EEEEEEEEEEEEEEvil...he is worse than a fool...he seeks out failure EVERY time...and they repeat this endlessly...and have the stupid, sanctimonious gall to whine when they get some of it back. Boy...what a bunch of oblivious losers.
Blogger Says:
All one needs to know to understand EVERYTHING about the Modern Liberal is that the Modern Liberal INVARIABLY and INEVITABLY sides with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.
Boy, that really burns me. It's no surprise to hear a rightist cavalierly describe (his idea of) large groups of fellow Americans in such crude and cartoonish terms.
The Right obscenely preaches its devotion to the people and their advancement through individual responsibility, but then they show their true colors and what they really think of real people. They see millions of Americans as just a bunch of idiots in crowded cities who can't think for themselves and exist solely for the purpose of being exploited. Of course, they are incapable of entertaining the existence of anyone who (WHAT?!) simply disagrees with them and has a reasonable and good faith basis for doing so.
Irony definity lost
on Sean, I mean.
I certainly believe that there are people voting for Obama solely because he is black (we certainly haven't heard much of substance) and there are people voting for Hillary solely because she's female, but that's just identity politics, not racism or sexism.
Motr importantly, do you think there are people not voting for Barak because he's black, not voting for Hillary because she's a woman? I'm sure there are, and to not address that bigotry is stupid.
As for whether Hillary should "address the issue" of people who believe a woman cannot be as effective a President as a man, she can best address the issue by refraining from addressing it at all. If she wants the job, she has to prove she can be an effective President, period. But she's the one (with the assistance of her husband) who continues to highlight her gender whenever she's backed into a corner.
So you think she shoudl just ignore the issue? That's never worked before, to be honest. For decades, women who have tried to break into the upper echelons of power the "silent way" that you are suggesting have failed.
Barrack Hussein Obama
That's the religion card.
Exactly. Every time someone tries to point out that he has a middle-eastern middle name, it's an attempt to tie him to Saddam Hussien, and what is that, if not the religion card? couple that with the frequent attempts to show that he is an ex-muslim or a secret muslim. So you play the religion card, but want us to not play the race or sex card? yOu think we are a bunch of sacrificial innocent lambs?!
PS Trashtallk from basketball at harvard -- i raised my eyebrows too, before having read anything else.
Sean Arther is Sayet...I'm a linguistics prof...yes, a REAL one, not like that Kate phony...and I'd know that parrot inflection anywhere.
That's right, Dora, I don't think there is any significant part of the population that isn't voting for Barack because he's black nor anyone not voting for Hillary because she's a woman.
Bigotry in America is, to the leftists, both a self-serving and circular argument. The left lives on "bigotry" because, since their philosophy is predicated on indiscriminateness, ANY discriminating thought is, by definition, "discrimination."
But how do you, as a hate-America-always leftist, jibe the evil that is proved by the "fact" that everyone in America would sell out their cousin for a dime, with the idea that we wouldn't elect a President who was black or female, even though they'd be better for us and end the evil practices of those oil companies and help the "middle class"?
Which one is it? Which excuse to hate America are you going to buy into today? We are evil capitalists who only care about money, or we are evil racists, who don't give a damn about money, so long as no black or woman is ever elected?
There is no complex issue that you can't bludgeon to death with simplistic rhetoric. You are the definition of a fool if you can't see the gaping holes in your logic.
"All one needs to know to understand EVERYTHING about the Modern Liberal is that the Modern Liberal INVARIABLY and INEVITABLY sides with evil over good..."
The difference is that leighton described a broad population of voting citizens so ignorant that their voting decisions are based solely upon which political party can dazzle them with the most trickery and obfuscation--that their decisions aren't based upon independent or rational thought. This has nothing to do with Evan's description of Modern Liberals, who enthusiastically ELECT to side with evil over good and need not be "tricked" into it.
"Motr importantly, do you think there are people not voting for Barak because he's black, not voting for Hillary because she's a woman? I'm sure there are, and to not address that bigotry is stupid."
I suppose that is possible, Dora, but what is your suggestion for "addressing" it and what should be done about it? If Obama loses, who do we accuse of racism for this unjust outcome? People who voted for Hillary instead of Obama? People who stayed home and didn't vote at all? How do you suggest we weed out the insidious people who would have voted for Obama BUT FOR the fact that he is black? Of course, since this is not feasible, the only way to "address" it (we certainly wouldn't want to be "stupid") is to blame the election results on racism generally and leave it at that (because it's a given that the only thing that could keep anyone from voting from a candidate as stellar as Obama is his race).
And as for using Obama's middle name "Hussein" to "play the religion card," I know exactly what you are talking about and I find it as silly and pointless as you probably do. But more importantly, are you really concerned that some pundits' emphasis on "Hussein" is, on its own, going to result in Obama losing votes that he otherwise would have had? If you do, then you obviously share leighton's view of other voting Americans being so unbelievably dumb that they are incapable of finding out more about a candidate before concluding that his middle name disqualifies him from the job. I just don't agree that voting Americans are that obtuse when deciding who to vote for. There are a multitude of reasons not to vote for Obama and none of them have anything to do with his middle name.
"So you think she shoudl just ignore the issue? That's never worked before, to be honest. For decades, women who have tried to break into the upper echelons of power the "silent way" that you are suggesting have failed."
So, again, Dora, if "ignoring" the gender issue is unacceptable, what is your suggestion? Accuse Obama voters of sexism? Accuse voters who stayed home of sexism? Or just stick with the usual--blame the loss on sexism among the voting public generally since the only reason not to vote for Hillary MUST BE her gender? You're right. Since women have failed to break into the upper echelons of power the "silent way," I guess claiming sexism for any undesired result (regardless of the ability to identify an actual "perpetrator" of the sexism) is the way to go straight to the top. Nothing says "leadership" and "competence" like vague, speculative complaints of sexism whenever an election is lost.
"Sean Arther is Sayet...I'm a linguistics prof...yes, a REAL one, not like that Kate phony...and I'd know that parrot inflection anywhere."
Wow. You really cracked the case. Why would Evan dream of posting comments as himself when he can just "parrot" himself under a different name on his own blog? I mean, it's not like he ever posts comments here and participates in the debate himself...
Sorry to disappoint you--I'm not Evan, but I'll certainly take your "parrot" accusation as a compliment.
Why would Evan dream of posting comments as himself when he can just "parrot" himself under a different name on his own blog? I mean, it's not like he ever posts comments here and participates in the debate himself...
Because there are only so many numbskulls like Suckette that he has to create his own little world.
Sorry to disappoint you--I'm not Evan, but I'll certainly take your "parrot" accusation as a compliment.
Of course you are and you will, Suckette.
Identity politics forcing Democrats to slice each other's throats...
Sharp criticism of Barack Obama and other comments about Martin Luther King Jr. — all from people associated with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — have generated resentment among some black S.C. voters.
The furor comes just two weeks before those voters will have a significant say in who wins the Jan. 26 primary here.
The Clinton-Obama battle has the potential to become a wrenching divide for black voters. Historically those voters have been strong backers of Bill and Hillary Clinton. But many black voters now are drawn to the prospect of a black man winning the presidency.
Those on both sides say watching the battle unfold in the Palmetto State, where black voters could cast half of the votes in the Democratic primary, won’t be pretty.
“To some of us, it is painful,” said state Sen. Darrell Jackson, a Clinton supporter.
U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., had pledged to remain neutral as Democrats competed for votes in the state’s primary.
But the state’s only African-American congressman was quoted in The New York Times Friday saying he is reconsidering that stance in light of comments from Clinton.
She raised eyebrows in New Hampshire when she credited President Lyndon Baines Johnson, not the assassinated John F. Kennedy or King, for passing civil rights legislation.
“It is one thing to run a campaign and be respectful of everyone’s motives and actions, and it is something else to denigrate those,” Clyburn told the Times. “That bothered me a great deal.”
LOL! It's an intramural poo fight this time!
Hey, has the wetback in the race dropped out yet?
Leftist "science" exposed...
A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.
Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.
The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.
New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.
“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.
The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.
Clinton threatens to trump Obama's race card with the gender card...
The back and forth in recent days has pushed race to the front of the Democratic nomination contest in the way it has not been.
Asked what role she thought race would play in her contest with Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton responded, “I hope none.”
“I don’t think either Senator Obama or myself want to see the injection of race or gender into this campaign,” she continued. “We are each running as individuals. I think it’s absolutely extraordinary that the two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president are an African-American and a woman.”
Hillary playing the sexism card...
I wanted to be an astronaut. I wrote to NASA and they wrote me back, "we don't take girls."
"Asked what role she thought race would play in her contest with Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton responded, “I hope none. I don’t think either Senator Obama or myself want to see the injection of race or gender into this campaign,” she continued. “We are each running as individuals. I think it’s absolutely extraordinary that the two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president are an African-American and a woman.”
Now that is funny. She hopes race won't play a factor in the campaign. Neither of them want to see race or gender injected into the campaign. Isn't it extraordinary that he's black and she's a woman?
Suckette, the robotic parrot, sez: Which excuse to hate America are you going to buy into today?
wtf???? Do you have Tourette's?You need to buy some new, fuggin material, you bore.
There's a name for people who see everyone else as either worthless scumbags or insolent fools. They're called elitists.
they are incapable of entertaining the existence of anyone who (WHAT?!) simply disagrees with them and has a reasonable and good faith basis for doing so.
This has nothing to do with Evan's description of Modern Liberals, who enthusiastically ELECT to side with evil over good and need not be "tricked" into it.
As I suspected, the irony was lost on you. It boggles my mind that someone would actually make a "liberals see everyone who disagrees with them as bad" argument on this garbage dump of a site.
Sean Arther, your whole point seems to be that there is no racism or sexism in this country and among voters, os any talk of it is "playing the race/sex card." Because if there were racism and sexism in this country among voters, then talking about it might be substantive, and not just "vague, speculative complaints," right? so, could you answer for me -- do you think there is racism and sexism in this country among voters or not?
I suppose that is possible, Dora, but what is your suggestion for "addressing" it and what should be done about it? If Obama loses, who do we accuse of racism for this unjust outcome? . . .
Why should we only talk about it after the fact, when someone loses?
IMHO, it's possible to be against Hillary without being sexist, and against Obama without being racist, but that possibility doesn't mean that there aren't also many people who are against Hillary because she's a woman, and against Barack because he's black. I know someone who isn't supporting him black, and I know people like myself who aren't supporting him because we like someone else better.
And as for using Obama's middle name "Hussein" to "play the religion card," I know exactly what you are talking about and I find it as silly and pointless as you probably do. But more importantly, are you really concerned that some pundits' emphasis on "Hussein" is, on its own, going to result in Obama losing votes that he otherwise would have had? If you do, then you obviously share leighton's view of other voting Americans being so unbelievably dumb that they are incapable of finding out more about a candidate before concluding that his middle name disqualifies him from the job. I just don't agree that voting Americans are that obtuse when deciding who to vote for.
Wait, what percentage of Americans believes that Saddam Hussien was responsible for 9/11? What percentage believes in ghosts?
You're right. Since women have failed to break into the upper echelons of power the "silent way," I guess claiming sexism for any undesired result (regardless of the ability to identify an actual "perpetrator" of the sexism) is the way to go straight to the top. Nothing says "leadership" and "competence" like vague, speculative complaints of sexism whenever an election is lost.
so you're saying that even if there are legitimate reasons to think there is racism and sexism among voters in this country (have you heard of the Bradley effect?), a true leader wouldn't ever talk about it?
That seems odd to me.
We called it the "Wilder Effect" here.
A voter in South Carolina:
“We have to peel back his identity,” said one elderly white voter in South Carolina, a state Obama must win on January 26. “Did you know his middle name is Hussein? He is a Muslim and was raised in an Islamic school.”
[Sunday Times]
IS a Muslim? Islamic school? You think this guy is going to go do more research, or he's found enough shreds to give himself reason not to vote for Obama, and won't be convinced otherwise?
You can't imagine how many times I've heard the same thing. Of course, I live in the South. But, in my defense, I was born in the North.
I forget whose post it is below -- I think "legal" or whatever she calls herself -- liberating Iraq EVEN IF IT LEADS TO FREEDOM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT -- ranks amongst the worst crimes in human history.
This is the statement of a child who knows nothing about history. It's like when the child yells at her mommy "you're the worst mother in the history of the world." They are so small that, nope, it's not the Holocaust, not the Batan Death March, not Pol Pot's killing fields, not Stalin's starving of the masses, not Kim Jung Il's starving of the masses, not Hafez al-Assad's destruction of the entire town of Hama, not the Rwandan massacres or the Sudanese Genocide...it's liberating 30 million people and helping them to govern themselves.
This is the type of moral and intellectual moronity that defines today's left.
Is there racism and sexism in America? Not of any great significance. Proof? Those con men (and you know they are, too, but won't admit it) Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson went LOOKING for racism (it's how they make their money).
In the entire year of 2007, they came up with THREE "big" examples: 1) Those horrible, horrible, rich, white, yuppies at Duke University...oooops, turned out the Democrats and the Liberals were trying to railroad innocent kids for personal and ideological gain.
2) "The Jena Six" -- only, there was no racism here, either. Just a vicious black thug cold-cocking an innocent white kid, spun by the leftist media into an "anti-black" story.
3) Then there was the BIGGIE: That horrible, horrible radio shock jock who made a bad joke using a rather tame version of the black vernacular (the same kind of lines that the leftists tell us is a-okay to be blasted into our children's ears so long as THEY'RE pocketing billions), in which some college basketball players were called "nappy headed ho's."
You see, in the REAL world, bigotry has some consequences. Jews are marched into ovens, christians are hacked to death by the Moslems in the Sudan. In America, the WORST case that even the race profiteers could find, was a bad joke that MIGHT have hurt some 22-year-old's FEELINGS.
But, like the other writer (elegal?) who thinks that liberating Iraq is amongst the worst crimes in human history, the Modern Liberal is so isolated from reality -- so pampered and spoiled-- that she thinks someone's feelings being hurt is just horrific, just as bad as the Holocaust.
Where there IS racism, of course, it is from the Democrats. Hillary Clinton publicly argues that all Indians -- including Mahatma Ghandi work at gas stations, other Democrats wonder if Barack Obama is "black enough" and that Condi Rice isn't REALLY black because, according to Democrats all blacks look alike, dress alike and think alike -- and they are all thugs. If you're not a "gangsta" like all REAL black people, then you're not "authentic."
Is there racism and sexism in America? Not of any great significance. Proof? Those con men (and you know they are, too, but won't admit it) Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson went LOOKING for racism (it's how they make their money).
I don't think you understand what the term "proof" means.
Talk about intellectual dishonesty - first you (the white guy) tell us that there's no racism of any great significance in the US (as if you're in any position to come to that conclusion) and then you tell us that Democrats are racists. I'm at a loss to understand how a person can make two such completely contradictory statements in the exact same post. Please Evan, explain to us how your dementia works.
This is the statement of a child who knows nothing about history. It's like when the child yells at her mommy "you're the worst mother in the history of the world." They are so small that, nope, it's not the Holocaust, not the Batan Death March, not Pol Pot's killing fields, not Stalin's starving of the masses, not Kim Jung Il's starving of the masses, not Hafez al-Assad's destruction of the entire town of Hama, not the Rwandan massacres or the Sudanese Genocide...it's liberating 30 million people and helping them to govern themselves.
But the question is, at what price are you liberating them? If it were, say, 1,000 civilian deaths for democracy in Iraq, I think most of would say that is worth it. But how about 100,000 civilians? Still worth it? What if you add that to all the wounded, and the refugees, still worth it?
Where would you draw the line, where the human toll of bringing democracy to Iraq becomes so great that it is no longer worth it? 1,000,000 civilian deaths? 10,000,000 civilian deaths? Or is it always worth it, according to you?
Is there racism and sexism in America? Not of any great significance.
You can't be serious.
You see, in the REAL world, bigotry has some consequences. Jews are marched into ovens, christians are hacked to death by the Moslems in the Sudan. In America, the WORST case that even the race profiteers could find, was a bad joke that MIGHT have hurt some 22-year-old's FEELINGS.
So you're saying that unless people die, it's not racism/bigotry? How strange.
But, like the other writer (elegal?) who thinks that liberating Iraq is amongst the worst crimes in human history, the Modern Liberal is so isolated from reality -- so pampered and spoiled-- that she thinks someone's feelings being hurt is just horrific, just as bad as the Holocaust.
No one has said that, I'm pretty sure no one actually thinks that.
Strawman alert.
Where there IS racism, of course, it is from the Democrats. Hillary Clinton publicly argues that all Indians -- including Mahatma Ghandi work at gas stations,
LOL -- show us the quote, sweet pea.
other Democrats wonder if Barack Obama is "black enough" and that Condi Rice isn't REALLY black because, according to Democrats all blacks look alike, dress alike and think alike -- and they are all thugs. If you're not a "gangsta" like all REAL black people, then you're not "authentic."
Who says this? Where? Quotes and cites, please.
You're arguing against an imaginary strawman from the 1980s.
Dementia indeed.
According to the latest estimate, 160,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed over and above normal fatality numbers since the beginning of the Iraq War, along with some 4 million Iraqis have been displaced. Compare this to the 2-400,000 deaths and 2.5 million displacements during the Sudanese genocide. These are very much comparable numbers. The difference is in intentions - the US (presumably) began the war in Iraq with only the best of intentions for the Iraq people; in the Sudan, the deaths are plainly and simply ethnic cleansing. Conservatives used to make fun of liberals for justifying bad policy based on its good intentions (and rightfully so); nowadays, those who support the war in Iraq fall back on our "good intentions" every time they're cornered. It's a topsy-turvy world we live in.
And how many Iraqi Kurds and Sunni's would have been killed had Saddam Hussein been left in charge?
And how many Iraqi Kurds and Sunni's would have been killed had Saddam Hussein been left in charge?
That's true, of course. That's why you have to weigh the costs and balance them out.
It's my opinion that the costs of the Iraq war for both the US and Iraq have far outweighed the benefits.
Also, Darfur is not a genocide. it's ethnic cleansing. It's a very important distinction.
Condi and Barack are House slaves. Everyone knows that the only authentic black person is a Field slave.
Darfur is an ethnic AND religious cleansing. The perpetrators of the genocide are Muslims, and their victims are either Christians and Muslims of different ethnicities.
The god of hyperbole complains about "intellectual dishonesty".
And how many Iraqi Kurds and Sunni's would have been killed had Saddam Hussein been left in charge?
From the article you cited:
So, by a conservative estimate, the regime was killing civilians at an average rate of at least 16,000 a year between 1979 and March 2003.
If the Shia or Kurds were targeted with wholesale murder, as seemed increasingly likely, the regime could easily have resumed killing at its historic rate of 15,000 to 20,000 deaths a year.
Compare that to the war, in which 160,000 people have died violent deaths in 5 years - that's 32,000 deaths per year. That number, of course, doesn't include the 4 million people who have been displaced, nor does it include non-fatal casualties, which (since the violence has been so random) one would have to conclude is fairly high.
So, in summary - the war has been more successful at killing Iraqis than Saddam was. And that, really, doesn't make me laugh one bit.
Desperate rightists revert to their violent nature:
Report: Jim Goodenow and his bus, the Yellow Rose, both have suffered a terrible tragedy. In recent months, Jim has been providing transportation to Iraq Veterans Against the War for their various tours and other activities. Last night, Jim escaped a fire of suspicious origins that destroyed the bus
Anyone who can read "Sean Arther's" robot tape below --as well as his other stuff -- and not know he is Sayet, is tone deaf -- and dumber than Hell:
The difference is that leighton described a broad population of voting citizens so ignorant that their voting decisions are based solely upon which political party can dazzle them with the most trickery and obfuscation--that their decisions aren't based upon independent or rational thought. This has nothing to do with Evan's description of Modern Liberals, who enthusiastically ELECT to side with evil over good and need not be "tricked" into it.
Yas, the similarities are strikink...tellink, tellink indeed.Haf you thought of oil for the robot?
Why would Evan dream of posting comments as himself when he can just "parrot" himself under a different name on his own blog? I mean, it's not like he ever posts comments here and participates in the debate himself...
Duh duhmb guy...he needs to create the illusion that he has support so he does not end up in the nuthouse where he should be with his insane black hat cartoon liberal who wants to do evil and his insane compulsive, eerie repetitions and his insane twisted rationalizations...perhaps you are just a fellow nutcase who has found a friend of your own at long long lahst and pays him O-mahjh with starry eyed, gapey jawed and adoring mimicry. Be happy, it's the morbid robot mumbo jumbo that keeps most of us checking into Bedlam for a little side show entertainment...cruel, I know, but that's the EEEEEEEEEEEvil lib for you.
Oh my, how tellink vas dat explication du texte...most tellink, mooooooooooost tellink indeed...I am beside myself mitt joy at dis pinnacle of tellinkness.
The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.
The Lancet is a periodical with absolutely unassailable credentials...it makes zero difference whatever if Soros or anyone else "funded" their study. They do not do their studies to arrive at false conclusions like the notorious climate "scientists" have done.
Of course, a batshit insane goofball like Sayet would whine that Iraq is not "among the greatest crimes in history" because he can name others which were also great!!!! Does the word AMONG strike a familiar chord, whack job? In addition to the million murdered, the five million displaced, the millions maimed physically and psychologically and all their friends and kin, we have not set ONE person free except for the death squads that roam FREELY through the land. WE have created chaos and Hell for an entire nation of innocent people and it may go on for decades to come...you filthy, morally dead little trained monkey...people like you should be forced to go there and live your useless lives out in the rubble doing what you can to make up for your evil.
Talk about intellectual dishonesty - first you (the white guy) tell us that there's no racism of any great significance in the US (as if you're in any position to come to that conclusion) and then you tell us that Democrats are racists. I'm at a loss to understand how a person can make two such completely contradictory statements in the exact same post. Please Evan, explain to us how your dementia works.
He is literally insane...it's a kind of alternate reality which is characteristically and constantly reinforced by endless repetition. The repetition is key to the whole syndrome...they find it necessary to endlessly repeatin order to reassure themselves and to quell self doubt as well as to drown out the realities which threaten them. Variations of this are found in every madhouse in the land... a very common syndrome.
And how many Iraqi Kurds and Sunni's would have been killed had Saddam Hussein been left in charge?
The "historian" does not even know that Saddam was a Sunni. The figure would have been tiny in comparison with the invasion...Iraq would have been orderly and women would have maintained the best situation in the mideast. And, the govt would have remained SECULAR. In addition to our other crimes, we've let loose the vicious dogs of fundamentalism on the land. And as someone pointed out, WE HAVE FREED NO ONE in any meaningful way.
slightcorrection said...
Darfur is an ethnic AND religious cleansing. The perpetrators of the genocide are Muslims, and their victims are either Christians and Muslims of different ethnicities.
Seriously, I'm as liberal as they come, and it's not a genocide. The UN also says it's not a genocide. Genocide has a very specific definition, from the Genocide Convention:
any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Ethnic cleansing doesn't rise to the level of genocide. There must be intent to destroy the group -- merely moving them or intending to clease an area of them, although horrible, is not genocide.
And how many Iraqi Kurds and Sunni's would have been killed had Saddam Hussein been left in charge?
The "historian" does not even know that Saddam was a Sunni.
Yexactly. He was earlier saying that the Taliban is going to take over Iraq...
And how many Iraqi Kurds and Sunni's would have been killed had Saddam Hussein been left in charge?
The "historian" does not even know that Saddam was a Sunni.
The historian is limited to the knowledge of his own mental health history, which I am certain, is quite lengthy
30% rise in the number of hate groups in America in the last five years.
Yexactly. He was earlier saying that the Taliban is going to take over Iraq...
Maybe he meant America where the Xtian Taliban wants to take over.
Yes, genocide is what upstanding Xtian, white folk almost accomplished with the Indians and the buffalo. And, they still feel good about themselves, though a few feel bad about the buf. Isn't that something? They accomplish it with that repetition device...we are the greatest country on earth...we are the blahblah blah
Oh, those were only the ones Saddam was killing. You're forgetting all those kids that Clinton was let die from UN sanction...you do remember oil for food, don't you???
U.N. economic sanctions were also killing civilians. Critics regularly claimed sanctions caused 4,000 to 5,000 Iraqi children to die per month from poor nutrition and health care. UNICEF attributed some 500,000 unnecessary deaths to the sanctions in the 1990s. The sanctions remained in place as long as Saddam's regime refused to comply with international requirements. Liberation made it possible to lift the sanctions almost immediately--thus saving approximately 60,000 lives a year, if we use UNICEF's numbers.
Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand:
Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%
Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%
They do not do their studies to arrive at false conclusions like the notorious climate "scientists" have done.
Yeah, thru Ted Turner's funding of the IPCC. LOL!
Ethnic cleansing doesn't rise to the level of genocide.
LOL! Pathetic. You'll defend the Sudanese government's right to kill their countrymen to the death, won't you.
If that isn't proof of Evan's thesis, then nothing is.
30% rise in the number of hate groups in America in the last five years.
Must be truth in advertising affecting the DNC.
"Anyone who can read "Sean Arther's" robot tape below --as well as his other stuff -- and not know he is Sayet, is tone deaf -- and dumber than Hell"
Once again, lingoprof, thank you. But I'm still not Evan. If I start using words like "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEvil" and "GOPigs" will you then believe I'm a completely different person?
"30% rise in the number of hate groups in America in the last five years."
No sh*t. We've all seen the coverage of the war protests.
ibsh8brownpeople said...
Ethnic cleansing doesn't rise to the level of genocide.
LOL! Pathetic. You'll defend the Sudanese government's right to kill their countrymen to the death, won't you.
If that isn't proof of Evan's thesis, then nothing is.
I'm a left-winger, I am a very human-rights-oriented person. I am all for holding people accountable for human rights abuses.
But that doesn't mean that we should call everything genocide. The UN Special Rapporteur to the Sudan said it wasn't genocide. Genocide has a very specific legal definition, which I already posted. There is extensive case law on this issue from the International Court of Justice, The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the Internationla Tribunal for Rwanda.
You can throw around "genocide" colloquially all you like, but that doesn't change the legal definition. Without the "dolus specialis" (special intent) requisite to genocide, which is the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the group in question, there is no genocide. Ethnic cleansing obviously does not intend to destroy the group, but to move it.
Am I a supporter of ethnic cleansing? Of course not. It is a crime against humanity and possibly a war crime if done in the context of a war, and should be punished accordingly.
Am I a supporter of precision? Yes.
"Am I a supporter of precision? Yes."
Dora, I'm so glad to hear you say that and I agree that there is a criminal absence of precision in the blogosphere. Now I beg you as a self-proclaimed left-winger to take your passionate cause back to your people and demand PRECISION NOW! for the following terms:
Hitler
nazi
hatred
murderer
theocracy
warmonger
fascist
racist
homophobic
imperialism
freedom-fighter
unconstitutional
oppression
unilateral
hypocrite
open-minded
bi-partisan
...this is just a partial list.
Yup, Larry, looks like a recount as discrepancies abound:
Election Integrity Challenged in New Hampshire
All ballots to be recounted
By Michelle Wolski
Epoch Times Florida Staff Jan 12, 2008
Voters (R) prepare to cast their ballots as poll workers assist at a polling place January 8, 2008 in Nashua, New Hampshire. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
New Hampshire Secretary of State William M. Gardner announced on Friday that two candidates in the New Hampshire primary have requested a recount of all ballots cast statewide.
The recount requests came from Republican presidential candidate Albert Howard and Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. According to Gardner, the recounts will commence on Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2008. Both candidates will pay for the cost of the recount.
Kucinich issued a petition for recount because of "unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots," according to a press release issued by the Kucinich campaign on Thursday.
"I am not making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf," said Kucinich in his letter to Secretary of State William M. Gardner. "Serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days. … It is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interest of public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the election machinery—not just in New Hampshire, but in every other state that conducts a primary election."
Election integrity was questioned on Wednesday in Sutton, N.H., where zero votes were recorded as the final count for Republican candidate Ron Paul. A Sutton family who had voted for Paul wondered why their votes weren't recorded and sent an Internet posting asking for help.
Bev Harris, founder of Black Box Voting Inc.,( blackboxvoting.org ) a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit, elections-watchdog group, took up the cause. Harris reported on the Austin-based Alex Jones radio show on Wednesday that she had spoken with Jennifer Call, Town Clerk in Sutton Township, who confirmed there was an error.
"Ron Paul got 31 votes, not 0. I asked her [Call] why the discrepancy, and she said they simply failed to put the right number on the form they sent to the media."
According to Harris and wheresthepaper.org, a Web site dedicated to election integrity, the classic method for rigging a hand count is to write the wrong number on the form.
Concerns About Electronic Voting Machines
Concerns of election integrity are also being raised with regard to the use of Diebold electronic voting machines. According to a table comparing all machine votes versus hand counts in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton benefited from Diebold-recorded votes by 5.419 percent, while Barack Obama lost 3.029 percent. In doing so, Clinton reversed a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll pre-polling deficit of about 10 percent to defeat Barack Obama.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney profited the most from the Diebold effect, receiving 7 percent more votes compared to hand-counted ballots, while Huckabee, McCain, and Paul lost the most, each more than 2 percent. Tables comparing all machine votes versus hand-counted votes can be viewed at checkthevotes.com.
The integrity of the voting process is under fire early in the 2008 presidential campaign, but it is not a new issue. After the Florida voting fiasco in the 2000 presidential campaign, activists such as Harris have stepped up their efforts.
Hacking Democracy, a documentary broadcast on HBO throughout November and December 2006, investigated and exposed the dangers of voting machines, which are currently used in approximately 90 percent of America's midterm and presidential elections, as well as county, state, and federal elections.
The two Ohio election staff members who are featured in Hacking Democracy were sentenced on March 13, 2007, for rigging the 2004 presidential recount. Incriminating footage from the documentary was used in their court case as evidence. Hacking Democracy can be viewed in its entirety on youtube.com or through Google video.
Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on voting machines across the country, but some people question their reliability and whether they are routinely and independently audited.
"We analyzed the machine's hardware and software, performed experiments on it, and considered whether real election practices would leave it suitably secure. We found that the machine is vulnerable to a number of extremely serious attacks that undermine the accuracy and credibility of the vote counts it produces," stated Ariel J. Feldman, J. Alex Halderman, and Edward W. Felton in their Sept. 13, 2006, report "Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine: Executive Summary," posted on the Web site of the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University.
The Princeton team concluded that malicious software can modify all the records to the point that careful examination will reveal nothing amiss. They also found that anyone can install such malicious software in as little as one minute, the machines are susceptible to computer viruses, and some of the problems can only be remedied by replacing the machines' hardware. The full text of their report can be viewed at http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting.
According to Harris, the same make and model of electronic voting machine hacked in the Black Box Voting project in Leon County as seen in Hacking Democracy was used throughout New Hampshire, where about 45 percent of elections administrators hand count paper ballots at the polling place, with the remaining locations all using the Diebold version 1.94w optical scan machine.
Additional security concerns were raised on a "Lou Dobbs Tonight" program that aired on Oct. 29, 2006, when former San Diego County poll worker Patty Newton revealed that prior to the June 6 primary election, poll workers were allowed to take the voting machines home.
"We were given slips of paper, had them stamped by one of the staff members, and we were directed to drive across to the parking lot to pick up our voting machines, and take them home," said Newton. "We all felt an ominous kind of responsibility. It was not something that we were told we were going to be doing."
The blackboxvoting.org Web site cites specific cases when computerized voting systems didn't work.
In one case, polling data had to be read to a poll worker who manually typed them in; in another case hand-counted ballot totals were entirely different from machine results, in another, the machine's memory cards were replaced midstream, and paper records were destroyed.
Losing Faith in the Election Process
"Ever since the 2000 election—and even before—the American people have been losing faith in the belief that their votes were actually counted," said Kucinich. "This recount isn't about who won 39 percent or 36 percent or even 1 percent. It's about establishing whether 100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted exactly the way they cast them."
"New Hampshire is in the unique position to address—and, if so determined, [to] rectify—these issues before they escalate into a massive, nationwide suspicion of the process by which Americans elect their president. Based on the controversies surrounding the presidential elections in 2004 and 2000, New Hampshire is in a prime position to investigate possible irregularities and to issue findings for the benefit of the entire nation," Kucinich wrote in his letter.
Under New Hampshire law, the candidate requesting the recount has to pay for it, which is approximately $67,000. Kucinich will foot the bill for the sake of restoring faith in the election process and deterring any fraud in the 2008 elections.
"Without an official recount, the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation will never know whether there are flaws in our electoral system that need to be identified and addressed at this relatively early point in the presidential nominating process," he said.
Recount Integrity Also Questioned
Election-integrity activists stress that chain-of-ballot custody and citizen control and oversight are crucial throughout the election process. Without such checks and balances, the accuracy of a recount could be undermined.
"The only way a recount makes any sense at all in New Hampshire is after an assessment is made of the chain-of-custody issues," writes Harris in "Recount—Is Dennis Kucinich Walking Into a Trap?" published on opednews.com. "If the chain of custody isn't intact, the recount won't be worth a cup of warm spit."
The Power of One
The chain of custody for New Hampshire voting-machine data is ultimately controlled by one private entity. John Silvestro and his private business, LHS Associates, have exclusive programming contracts for all New Hampshire voting machines. The combined total of these machines counted about 81 percent of the New Hampshire primary votes. Silvestro also holds the programming contracts for Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
"LHS is not subject to public records requirements, as the government is, at least, not in New Hampshire," writes Harris. "The control over memory-card contents is absolute; when cards malfunction or get lost, LHS brings the replacements."
Breakdown of Checks and Balances
The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission is entrusted with the responsibility of examining voting machines and devices for computerized casting and counting of ballots. Any voting machine or device that is altered must be re-approved before it is used in any New Hampshire election.
According to New Hampshire Title LXIII Elections, Chapter 656:41, "A machine shall be considered altered if any mechanical or electronic part, hardware, software, or programming has been altered."
Despite knowing there were at least 16 software defects that could cause the optical scanners to fail, the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission passed a motion approving use of optical machines in New Hampshire elections in a split decision in March 2006. Proponents reasoned that the ballots could always be counted by hand if the machines ever failed.
Although subsequent independent studies, including the Princeton study, confirmed numerous security vulnerabilities, the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission did not reconvene to approve any upgraded machines prior to Tuesday's primary.
The integrity of America's voting process is indeed in question. Prior to the public going to the polls during election day, the question of chain-of-ballot custody after the election and its potential effects on a recount procedure are security gaps that have been identified.
What's at stake is not only the New Hampshire primary, but the integrity of America's election process. It remains to be seen whether the New Hampshire experience will lead to tightening up procedures across the country in time to ensure a sound 2008 election.
Well, Sean Arther, I don't throw around your list of words lightly. But I calls em how I sees em.
When someone like Farmer John says that blacks are genetically intellectually inferior to whites, and that gays are "vile" and "self-hating" and are pedophiles, is it not right to call him a racist and a homophobe, for example?
Here, I'll save you the trouble.
Racist:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
http://m-w.com/dictionary/racist
Homophobia
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
http://m-w.com/dictionary/homophobia
But if I work on this on the left, will you promise to take his precision gospel to Sayet? :)
Would Giuliani Manage the Federal Budget as Badly as He’s Running His Campaign Finances? 1/13
Does it matter? He's in the toilet, anyway.
Insurance Companies Profit by Systematically Cheating Their Customers, Consumer Group Finds
No...corporations do not need regulating. They are inherently honest and benign on every occasion...if you're a naive, right wing, free market dipstick
I understand from the above that the rightist embraces the policies of success at every turn:
A Full Circle of Disastrous Failure: Iraq to reinstate ex-Saddam supporters. More Than a Trillion Dollars of Our Taxpayer Dollars for This Incompetent, Bungling, Bloody Farce. 1/13
George Bush to push $20bn Saudi arms deal. There's money to be made supporting dictatorial, misogynist monarchies! 1/13
Let me tell you why the stock market has not dropped entirely...the cross ownership and investment in foreign countries whose economies are not basket cases like our own is keeping it afloat. When our mess starts dragging them down you'll see it slip faster.
I'm a left-winger, I am a very human-rights-oriented person. I am all for holding people accountable for human rights abuses.
This cracks me up. I'd like to know how you would "hold people accountable for human rights abuses". Please, explain to me what we should do when these acts are committed.
You'll likely say we just need to schedule another annual meeting at the UN to blather about it with a bunch of corrupt cowards. The UN is impotent and hasn't a notable accomplishment since the reformation of Israel in 1947. Except maybe the funding of rogue governments through corrupt programs and misdirected charities. Just sign a paper and tell yourself it will make a difference. It's like slapping a murderer on the wrist and sending him home without supper. It doesn't work!
"Well, Sean Arther, I don't throw around your list of words lightly. But I calls em how I sees em."
Totally agree, Dora. I have not found you to be one of the offenders in this area at all. I think you and I (and Evan) disagree regarding the EXTENT to which racism, homophobia, etc. is practiced in America, as distinguished from what actually constitutes racism, homophobia, etc. (pursuant to the reasonable definitions you have provided, which I think we can all agree on). Accordingly...
"When someone like Farmer John says that blacks are genetically intellectually inferior to whites, and that gays are "vile" and "self-hating" and are pedophiles, is it not right to call him a racist and a homophobe, for example?"
Yup. That's an easy one. Get out the label-maker and get busy. I am more interested in the tougher cases invoked by the some of the words I mentioned. For example, hatred. Evangelical Christians practice a religion that condemns homosexuality as sin. They don't want gays put on an island and blown up. They don't go out on weekends and get drunk, looking for a fag to bash. They just BELIEVE it is wrong. Too often, this is cavalierly labeled "hatred" and/or "homophobia." That is not just imprecise, it's downright inaccurate--and to use these labels against people who have those beliefs implicitly discounts religion as something that must change or evolve to be legitimate. That's just one example of how abused some of the buzzwords are.
"But if I work on this on the left, will you promise to take his precision gospel to Sayet? :)"
I try to speak up when I see words being used over and over again in a sense that literally contradicts their true (and not particularly complicated) definitions. (I can hardly count how many liberals have called me "closed-minded" simply because I don't end up agreeing with them unequivocally--even after I have listened patiently to their arguments for half-an-hour). I'm just really sick of words suddenly meaning the opposite of their definitions!
You might find this encouraging--over at gaypatriot.com (Very Gay, Very Conservative, not in that order...) there is currently an interesting debate going on about how conservatives may have been too hasty throwing around the term "Islamofascism" since some of the elements of true fascism seem to be lacking in even the most brutal of terrorist regimes (something about the element of "corporatism" not being present...?). The point is that it is really quite refreshing to see my fellow conservatives taking a hard look at a term that entered the righty lexicon like a duck to water, and unfortunately might be an example of the "imprecision" we like to condemn the Left for practicing.
So, while I'm over at gaypatriot questioning my peers' (and my own) use of the term "Islamofascism," hopefully it will inspire you to have the courage to go into one of your favorite sites (preferably the most virulently anti-Republican-the-right-wing-is-evil-and-must-be-crushed one you can think of) and start a new topic:
"Hey everybody! Query: George Bush = Hitler, and Dick Cheney = Satan. Is it possible that we might have overshot the hoop by a centimeter or two? Discuss."
Be careful out there. ; )
Racist:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
What do you think about the brilliant minds of Walter E Williams, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes, Michael Steele or Condoleezza Rice? These happen to be some of my absolute favorite conservatives, and I'd say that my views are shared by most politically aware conservatives.
I know what you're thinking. You see a black conservative as an oxymoron. You see the diversity of the current administration and say "Condi & Khalilzaid and Gonzalez show us that you can be an evil mofo even if you're black, arab or hispanic." Evil, eh? There, my friend, is real racism.
Re: the imprecision of the usage of the word "Facism":
After you're done talking to those people, send a note to this idiot
Arther...doesn't know how to spell his own name...and doesn't know how corporatism relates fo fascism, but wants to talk about imprecision of language! Maybe he should get a basic education first...that "reformation" of Israel dope was quite the little simp, too...how do you debate with ideological psychopaths...well, you don't of course...you stir them up with a stick like kids do with anthills...this is just the grown up version of that amusing diversion.
and I'd say that my views are shared by most politically aware conservatives.
man, what a find...these guys are an endless hoot...politcally aware conservatives are now known as undecided, libertarian or Democrat.
You need to pump your brakes, Frenchy. Aside from telling me how to spell my own name you seem to have me all wrong. My comment was about my disgust at Leftists for trying to change the meaning of words to reflect what they want them to mean, rather than what they actually mean (and the fact that conservatives should resist doing this as well). I have no idea what your problem is with that because your comment is completely unintelligible. In other words, what the fu*k are you talking about?
When he does learn what corporatism is, he may understand why some of us aptly call the modern conservative movement the neonazi movement. He's right about Bush and Hitler though...Hitler would have conquered the world if he'd headed the US. If Bush had run Germany, he'd have been defeated the day he entered the Sudetenland.
By 2011, the US prison and jail population will have added nearly 200,000 inmates -- a 13 percent overall increase and a 16 percent jump for women, according to a 50-state study by the Pew Charitable Trusts. About half these new inmates will be Blacks, whose mass confinement is the imperative that fuels the relentless growth of the largest and most pervasive Gulag in the history of mankind. The US prison system is a horrific national monument to racism, that dwarfs and mocks the Statue of Liberty, revealing the United States as by far the planet's foremost Land of the Un-Free, Home of the Locked-Down -- a rebuke to the authenticity of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Mumia? Is that you?
The US prison system is a horrific national monument to racism, that dwarfs and mocks the Statue of Liberty, revealing the United States as by far the planet's foremost Land of the Un-Free, Home of the Locked-Down -- a rebuke to the authenticity of the Emancipation Proclamation.
You kidding me? You can't call the system racist based on racial percentages. It just so happens that at this point in history there are a disproportionate number of black criminals to other races. This is actually changing now with Hispanics taking a bigger chunk of that pie.
There are definitely serious problems with our criminal justice system, but race discrimination isn't one of them. The way we allow lawyers to make millions keeping the same freaking cases open in court appeal after appeal for 20 years is extremely expensive and needs to be stopped. Another issue is that we put too many people in jail for a long time in comfortable living conditions. The people in jail often get better food than the kids at public schools, TV's, social time, etc. Jail should be a horrible experience where people are NOT allowed to congregate together to form gangs, build up their criminal contact list, smoke, watch porn etc. They should be stuck in a stone room with bread and water, then spend their days working in a factory or something to make up for the cost of their confinement. Good behavior could be rewarded with basic education as long as their own work funds it. It's supposed to be a punishment for gods sake. Jail time should be feared - it's supposed to deter future crime. Then of course, we need to execute murderers, violent rapists, child molesters, and most drug dealers(at least for the killer drugs like heroin & cocaine). I guarantee a low crime rate and a small jail population. There is proof of how this works in Singapore. Singapore has 12 times the population of Vancouver but just half the crime rate. The reason is because they have strict, well enforced laws.
Of course, along with that is the need to stop the cycle of broken families in the slums. That is a task that can only be taken on by those local communities and possibly encouraged with appropriate laws. However, you cannot legislate morality It's one of the challenges of our time, no doubt.
Without the "dolus specialis" (special intent) requisite to genocide, which is the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the group in question, there is no genocide.
...but if my real intention, which which is to steal all my neighbors land, results in all the Christians and members of different tribes being exterminated or moving away, then it's not "genocide". I see. I'm so glad that the "lawyers" at the UN have their arms around this problem.
Election Integrity Challenged in New Hampshire
Let Democrats keep undermining the integrity of the voting system, sally...
Cuz we all know what the "alternative" is to letting the vote decide who's in charge.
When someone like Farmer John says that blacks are genetically intellectually inferior to whites, and that gays are "vile" and "self-hating" and are pedophiles, is it not right to call him a racist and a homophobe, for example?
You can, but then I can't recall ever calling ALL gays vile or salf-hating or ALL blacks having lower IQ's...
...of course when dora says that the definition of "marriage" should be extended to cover mothers and sons of even fathers and sons and brothers and sisters, one might take her stated dedication to "precision" with a little tongue in cheek
This cracks me up. I'd like to know how you would "hold people accountable for human rights abuses". Please, explain to me what we should do when these acts are committed.
You'll likely say we just need to schedule another annual meeting at the UN to blather about it with a bunch of corrupt cowards. The UN is impotent and hasn't a notable accomplishment since the reformation of Israel in 1947. . .
REally? Huh. I wonder what you think of the fact that Slobodan Milosovic died in the custody of a UN-created war crimes tribunal. That tribunal sentenced a bunch of war criminals to prison terms they are now serving. They probably don't think the UN is all that impotent. Same goes for the Rwanda tribunal, also created by the UN.
And maybe you should go tell Charles Taylor, the ex-president of Liberia, that the UN is impotent? He's on trial right now for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the Special Sierra Leone tribunal.
That's how to deal with war criminals. Trial, and then if convicted, prison for a long long time.
I am more interested in the tougher cases invoked by the some of the words I mentioned. For example, hatred. Evangelical Christians practice a religion that condemns homosexuality as sin. They don't want gays put on an island and blown up. They don't go out on weekends and get drunk, looking for a fag to bash. They just BELIEVE it is wrong. Too often, this is cavalierly labeled "hatred" and/or "homophobia." That is not just imprecise, it's downright inaccurate--and to use these labels against people who have those beliefs implicitly discounts religion as something that must change or evolve to be legitimate. That's just one example of how abused some of the buzzwords are.
I can't speak for other people, but what do you think of this: the Evangelicals recently had a big outcry over the hate crime legislation, saying it would stifle their freedom of speech to say that homosexuality is a sin. Too bad most people didn't even bother to read the law. The law only dealt with violent hate crimes. It dealt with VIOLENT CRIME perpetrated upon someone BECAUSE of their sexual orientation. It didn't deal with speech at all. But the evangelicals opposed this bill. Not because they are opposed to hate crimes legislation (after all, when the same bil was passed with respect to gender and race, they didn't say a peep). They opposed it because it expanded hate crimes protection to homosexuals.
Is that not a tinge homophobic?
Also, I think it's very posisble for religious views to actually be homophobic. Just because someone expresses a sentiment as a "religious view," I don't think we should give them a pass on criticism. Some religious views are kinda vile.
You might find this encouraging--over at gaypatriot.com (Very Gay, Very Conservative, not in that order...) there is currently an interesting debate going on about how conservatives may have been too hasty throwing around the term "Islamofascism" since some of the elements of true fascism seem to be lacking in even the most brutal of terrorist regimes (something about the element of "corporatism" not being present...?). The point is that it is really quite refreshing to see my fellow conservatives taking a hard look at a term that entered the righty lexicon like a duck to water, and unfortunately might be an example of the "imprecision" we like to condemn the Left for practicing.
Well, I guess that's a good thing, and you guys are no more collectively guilty for what each other says than we on the left are collectively guilty (like, I am not responsible for what Cindy Sheehan says). But I have to remind you that when we on the left were making the exact same argument about that term, we were called every name in the book, from traitor to terrorist-lover to un-American, etc.
"Hey everybody! Query: George Bush = Hitler, and Dick Cheney = Satan. Is it possible that we might have overshot the hoop by a centimeter or two? Discuss."
Here's what I would say in response to that: we on the left like to say those things (though I prefer Chimpy and Darth VadeR), but when we make discourse in a public forum, as senators or representatives or writers, we don't use those terms. Those are for casual conversation. On the right however, "Islamofacism" has made it all the way to the president's lips in official statements. Accusing the left of being traitors and un-American for questioning the right is something that Senators engage in, publicly.
I think there is a difference.
Without the "dolus specialis" (special intent) requisite to genocide, which is the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the group in question, there is no genocide.
...but if my real intention, which which is to steal all my neighbors land, results in all the Christians and members of different tribes being exterminated or moving away, then it's not "genocide". I see. I'm so glad that the "lawyers" at the UN have their arms around this problem.
No, no it's not. That is a very serious crime too, but why do you have to raise every horrific crime to the level of the Holocaust, Screbernica and Rwanda? Why? Not every homicide is a murder.
You see the diversity of the current administration and say "Condi & Khalilzaid and Gonzalez show us that you can be an evil mofo even if you're black, arab or hispanic." Evil, eh? There, my friend, is real racism.
How is that racism? Are you going to deny that Condi, Kahllilzaid and Gonzalez are more or less evil?
If Bush had run Germany, he'd have been defeated the day he entered the Sudetenland.
Poor Sudentenland people. Seriously. They got ethnically cleansed by the Allies hardcore.
And Justin, your latest opus (below) . . you have outdone yourself. You plead for a totalitarian government, you describe the Gulag jail system and then PRAISE it! Do you realize how twisted that is? When did you lose your humanity?
There are definitely serious problems with our criminal justice system, but race discrimination isn't one of them.
I wonder what qualifies you to make this statement.
The way we allow lawyers to make millions keeping the same freaking cases open in court appeal after appeal for 20 years is extremely expensive and needs to be stopped.
Since we're talking about prisons, that means you're talking about criminal cases. where do lawyers make millions off criminal cases? Most capital offenders are represented for free by lawyers appointed by the courts. There is no money in criminal law except for white collar crime and the occassional OJ Simpson. Seriously, you're SO WRONG on this.
Another issue is that we put too many people in jail for a long time in comfortable living conditions. The people in jail often get better food than the kids at public schools, TV's, social time, etc. Jail should be a horrible experience where people are NOT allowed to congregate together to form gangs, build up their criminal contact list, smoke, watch porn etc. They should be stuck in a stone room with bread and water, then spend their days working in a factory or something to make up for the cost of their confinement.
Omg, you're completely inhumane! We've worked hundreds of years to treat prisoners like people, rather than putting them in a stone room with bread and water and hard labor! You're describing the gulag and other pre-modern penal systems. No developed country has a system like that, because we all have humanity. What happened to your humanity?
Good behavior could be rewarded with basic education as long as their own work funds it. It's supposed to be a punishment for gods sake. Jail time should be feared - it's supposed to deter future crime.
you don't think it's feared now? would you want to go to jail?!
Then of course, we need to execute murderers, violent rapists, child molesters, and most drug dealers(at least for the killer drugs like heroin & cocaine).
Well, fortunately, our supreme court is not as trigger-happy as you, and executions of rapists are banned, and executions of child molesters will probably be banned too. Even executions of minors and the mentally retarded have been banned.
I wonder what you think of public hanging?
I guarantee a low crime rate and a small jail population. There is proof of how this works in Singapore. Singapore has 12 times the population of Vancouver but just half the crime rate. The reason is because they have strict, well enforced laws.
OMG, you're like a masochist, you WANT to live in a totalitarian state where you can't even chew gum! Don't you think their low crime rate might have something to do with other societal factors? They're very little crime in Scandinavia too, but they don't have a totalitarian legal system, harsh prisons or the death penalty.
Of course, along with that is the need to stop the cycle of broken families in the slums. That is a task that can only be taken on by those local communities and possibly encouraged with appropriate laws. However, you cannot legislate morality It's one of the challenges of our time, no doubt.
you cannot legislate morality? but you're pro-life, and anti-gay marriage?
You're such a terrifying hoot.
you cannot legislate morality? but you're pro-life, and anti-gay marriage?
Things like abortion can't be stopped with laws alone. Law enforcement only punishes and deters through fear. I'm saying you cannot build a moral populous with laws alone. That doesn't mean you should legalize morally corrupt behaviors/institutions such as bestiality, prostitution, gay marriage, abortion, statutory rape, polygamy, incest etc. If you want to make abortion and gay marriage legal, why not make these other things legal to? Give me one reason! Tell me why those things are wrong. I want to hear your "moral reasoning".
OMG, you're like a masochist, you WANT to live in a totalitarian state where you can't even chew gum!
No, I don't want silly laws against gum chewing or spitting like they have in Singapore, but I do want criminals punished for their crimes. I would not be against public hanging either. There is nothing totalitarian about enforcing laws and punishing criminals. These people are a danger to society and have forfeited their rights. Don't even start talking about murderers and violent rapists and people with any rights whatsoever. All you have to do is put yourself in the victim/victims families shoes for a few minutes and you will know what needs to be done to prevent it from happening again. What's your problem with killing a cold blooded criminal? I'm sure you have no problem with all of the Nazis we killed in WW2. The ones that were responsible for war crimes against humanity. If you can justify the death of any man, you have justified capital punishment.
I would not be against public hanging either.
Well, there you have it, folks.
There is nothing totalitarian about enforcing laws and punishing criminals. These people are a danger to society and have forfeited their rights. Don't even start talking about murderers and violent rapists and people with any rights whatsoever.
Well, it's you vs. me and the founding fathers. Can I show you?
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 the land 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.
Who are those the rights of, would you say? I'd say the rights of the accused.
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.
Oh good god, this bill of rights thing is a bleeding heart liberal! Look at all those rights for the accused!
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Oh, oh, what's that I see? No excessive fines or cruel or unusual punishments? Those are the rights of the CONVICTED! Of CRIMINALS!
See, me and the founding fathers, we believe that the accused, and convicted criminals have rights.
You're alone on this one, my vengeful friend.
What's your problem with killing a cold blooded criminal? I'm sure you have no problem with all of the Nazis we killed in WW2. The ones that were responsible for war crimes against humanity. If you can justify the death of any man, you have justified capital punishment.
you can't equate war with regular civilian criminal justice. But maybe you're referring to the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, that sentenced people to death? I have a problem with it, and so does the rest of the international community. War Crimes tribunals, like the Yugoslavia and Rwanda ones, don't have the death penalty as a penalty, and the general consensus is "no more death penalty."
That is a very serious crime too, but why do you have to raise every horrific crime to the level of the Holocaust, Screbernica and Rwanda? Why? Not every homicide is a murder.
from Wikipedia on Darfur - Conflict ongoing; humanitarian catastrophe (est. 200,000-400,000 dead and 2,500,000 refugees) since 2003 and millions since the UN first began to mediate crises in Sudan in the 1950s.
By comparison...The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as Srebrenica Genocide, was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak boys and men, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War. In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre.
I never said anything about taking away the rights of the accused Dora. Typical of you to put words in my mouth. I am talking about convicted criminals. In regards to the eighth amendment, you must be a pretty lousy law student.
"The use of the word and (instead of or) has been held to have some significance. Cruel punishments are allowable as long as more than one court system applies the punishment. Similarly, unusual punishments are permitted so long as they are not cruel, although some lawyers would argue that any unusual punishment is cruel."
"In Wilkerson v. Utah (1878, pertaining to methods of capital punishment), the Supreme Court commented that drawing and quartering, public dissecting, burning alive and disemboweling would constitute cruel and unusual punishment while determining that death by firing squad was as legitimate as the common method of that time, hanging."
What school do you go to anyway?
you can't equate war with regular civilian criminal justice.
Well, you can if you are talking about the basic ethicacy of taking a human life. Is it ever justified? You tell me when and your rational behind it?
Also Dora, I am anxious to hear your ethical views on these things:
bestiality
prostitution
statutory rape
polygamy
incest
Why are they wrong? What authority gives you, or anybody for that matter, the right to say they are wrong and make laws forbidding them? If I held your godless relativistic view of the world, I might have an argument against incest if there is pregnancy, but even then, you could always just abort it. Tell me - what are your moral convictions, if any?
There are definitely serious problems with our criminal justice system, but race discrimination isn't one of them.
Is this guy insane or does he like having his head up his ass for good and rational reasons?
There are definitely serious problems with our criminal justice system, but race discrimination isn't one of them.
Is this guy insane or does he like having his head up his ass for good and rational reasons?
So basically, you're saying the only reason there is a proportionally higher percentage of blacks in jails is because they are all being put in there for crimes they didn't commit. There is no evidence to back that claim. It's fallacious propaganda.
Singapore...that alone should tell you what these people are, what they want and why they hate America...they literally hate freedom...they want an insane, repressive, oppressive,authoritarian police state which keeps everyone in line. Lines are what they like...absolutely straight, tightly regulated lines for automatons and fearful, little people who prefer absolute order over the messy side effects of freedom. It's the essential difference between tight, narrow, frightened conservatives and open, tolerant, life and freedom loving liberals. FEARFEARFEAR that's what they live and breath and it must be stamped out by order...no matter how stifling and monstrous...like the wretched state of Singapore.
All you have to do is put yourself in the victim/victims families shoes for a few minutes and you will know what needs to be done to prevent it from happening again. What's your problem with killing a cold blooded criminal?
Yes, you vicious little ape...all you have to do is put yourself in the victim's electric chair when he is one of the many who are totally innocent and is the victim of the insane criminal justice system which is so full of holes and inequities that it is a monstrous joke. Have you paid any attention to the number of people who have been found later to be innocent of their "crimes"? And only the tip of the iceberg is found...they are victims of self righteous, shallow, jejeune fools like you.
they can't debate you so they debate what they say you said...show me where I said it was the ONLY reason. And by the way, it's populACE.
Throw away the keys!
LOL~!
Now you're showing your ignorance about the government of Singapore. I'm not calling the government the ideal, because it is corrupt and unbalanced in many ways. I was using their criminal justice system as an example of what can happen when you actually punish criminals for their crimes. Gangs use our prisons as their primary recruitment centers for gods sake.
Show me where my ignorance about Singapore is displayed. Your own is manifest...to compare a society like Singapore's to the sprawling, diverse society of the US is a moron's game. We don't punish criminals?!!! Our prisons are the fullest in the world...that isn't punishment? Only in the silliest, most judgmental and childish minds are yeats in a prison not punishment.
Show me where my ignorance about Singapore is displayed. Your own is manifest...to compare a society like Singapore's to the sprawling, diverse society of the US is a moron's game. We don't punish criminals?!!! Our prisons are the fullest in the world...that isn't punishment? Only in the silliest, most judgmental and childish minds are yeats in a prison not punishment.
Show me where my ignorance about Singapore is displayed.
"Singapore has a successful and transparent market economy. Government-linked companies are dominant in various sectors of the local economy, such as media, utilities, and public transport. Singapore has consistently been rated as the least corrupt country in Asia and among the world's ten most free from corruption by Transparency International."
Look it up ding dong.
So what were you saying about this horrible country of Singapore? I'm not claiming it's perfect, because I wouldn't choose my government to work exactly as they did - I'm just citing their approach of criminal punishment as an example of something that works.
"they are victims of self righteous, shallow, jejeune fools like you."
And since you're so kind as to correct my spelling error, I will return the favor. The word is not "jejeune", it's jejune.
And since you're so kind as to correct my spelling error, I will return the favor. The word is not "jejeune", it's jejune.
That's what is known as a typo, buddy...when you do it over and over it's a misspelling. But good to know you had to go look it up.
Well, you've showed me NOTHING so far...obviously, I'm talking about their stifling laws and authoritarian society...it's a well regulated HELL. And, as I said it is insane to compare it to a huge, diverse society like the US whose citizens...in the middle and left ...would never countenance those stifling laws. LIke the ones you've been trying to foist on us...you're seeing the beginning of the reaction to that now. So, it might be good to see if they'll let a little honky boy like you in to their well ordered little jailhouse. It's all a matter of taste...
from Wikipedia on Darfur - Conflict ongoing; humanitarian catastrophe (est. 200,000-400,000 dead and 2,500,000 refugees) since 2003 and millions since the UN first began to mediate crises in Sudan in the 1950s.
10:52 AM
Anonymous dorah8sbrownpeople said...
By comparison...The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as Srebrenica Genocide, was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak boys and men, in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War. In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre.
See, you're missing the point again. Genocide is not based on how many people die. Tens of millions died in German and Russian armies in WWII, btu that does not make it a genocide. It's based on intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a group of people. What is so hard to understand?
"The use of the word and (instead of or) has been held to have some significance. Cruel punishments are allowable as long as more than one court system applies the punishment. Similarly, unusual punishments are permitted so long as they are not cruel, although some lawyers would argue that any unusual punishment is cruel."
"In Wilkerson v. Utah (1878, pertaining to methods of capital punishment), the Supreme Court commented that drawing and quartering, public dissecting, burning alive and disemboweling would constitute cruel and unusual punishment while determining that death by firing squad was as legitimate as the common method of that time, hanging."
Where are these quotes from? Can't you read the plain text of it, no cruel and unusual punishments, no excessive fines. those are rights of criminals. you said "These people are a danger to society and have forfeited their rights. Don't even start talking about murderers and violent rapists and people with any rights whatsoever."
Turns out, the founding fathers said that have at least 2 rights. So, you were wrong in calling them people without "any rights whatsoever."
you can't equate war with regular civilian criminal justice.
Well, you can if you are talking about the basic ethicacy of taking a human life. Is it ever justified? You tell me when and your rational behind it?
You made up a word (ethicacy) and misspelled another (rational). The taking of a human life is always bad, even if done by the government, and we should avoid it if at all possible. Sometimes, avoiding war is not possible. But it is alsways possible to put someone in jail for life without the possibility of getting out.
I'm actually a very good law student, at a very good school. Now let's hear which college you went to, and how good of a student you were.
Also Dora, I am anxious to hear your ethical views on these things:
bestiality
prostitution
statutory rape
polygamy
incest
Why are they wrong? What authority gives you, or anybody for that matter, the right to say they are wrong and make laws forbidding them?
To me, the central issue here is consent. It is generally accepted that minors cannot consent. Nor can animals. Adult men and women, however, can consent. So i see no problem with prostitution or polygamy. I don't really see what the big deal with incest is either. IT's not like people are clamoring to do it, but for it being illegal. If it doesn't produce children, what's the problem? Plus, according to most geneticists, marrying your second cousin is okay. Also, we don't make it illegal for mentally retarded people to have children, nor do we make it illegal for other people with various congenital diseases to reproduce, such as Ashkenazi Jews. So i don't really see any reasonable rationale for it. And gay incest can't produce children. Think about it :)
If I held your godless relativistic view of the world, I might have an argument against incest if there is pregnancy, but even then, you could always just abort it. Tell me - what are your moral convictions, if any?
My moral convictions? Each individual person has the right to live his or her own life as he or she chooses while not hurting others. If he or she chooses to live in a society, he or she is a participant in that society and responsibility to that society as well. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It's quite simple.
So basically, you're saying the only reason there is a proportionally higher percentage of blacks in jails is because they are all being put in there for crimes they didn't commit. There is no evidence to back that claim. It's fallacious propaganda.
No one said that is the only reason. You're so black-and-white, forgive the pun.
Is there ever anything in your world that has MANY reasons/causes?
I think it's really scary that you have 5 children.
What do you do for work? Does your wife work? hahaha i know the answer to the latter.
Singapore...that alone should tell you what these people are, what they want and why they hate America...they literally hate freedom...they want an insane, repressive, oppressive,authoritarian police state which keeps everyone in line. Lines are what they like...absolutely straight, tightly regulated lines for automatons and fearful, little people who prefer absolute order over the messy side effects of freedom. It's the essential difference between tight, narrow, frightened conservatives and open, tolerant, life and freedom loving liberals. FEARFEARFEAR that's what they live and breath and it must be stamped out by order...no matter how stifling and monstrous...like the wretched state of Singapore.
Yup. They would love the USSR.
I think it's because of psychological issues. You ever wonder why so many of them turn out to be secret homosexuals or sado-masochists or drug users?
They seem to me to people who are horribly ridden with guilt and self-condemnation for their own desires. They don't trust themselves to stay away from these desires, so they want the government to make those desires illegal, so that they don't have to face the independent choice of engaging in them or not. They don't want to have self-control.
But what's worse is that they solipsistically imagine that everyone else is exactly the same way -- under a veneer of propriety, a raging Id of unfulfilled desires, so they think it would be good for the government to control everyone else very closely also.
Ironically, of course, this goes directly against their small-government, personal-responsibility mantra.
Like, Farmer John -- he says he has homosexual thoughts that he represses. He also says that every other man has the same kind of thing (so it's the "strength in numbers" fallacy). What he really wants is for the government to make homosexuality damn-near a capital offense, so that he will never be even remotely tempted to engage in it.
Maybe totalitarians didn't have a good authority figure in their youth? Or maybe they're people conflicted over desires they think are "unnatural" and bad?
I dunno, whatever the case may be, I think it's more of an individual psychological problem than an ideological one.
What he really wants is for the government to make homosexuality damn-near a capital offense...
...from the girl who really knows LOL!
Nope. Not even close. But please, feel free to try, try again! If you ever get good at stuffin' strawmen, maybe one day you'll stuff a halfway decent scarecrow! But so far... you're strawmen suck lemons! But here, maybe this will help... Naaaah. You're pretty well hopeless.
Dora says: "They seem to me to people who are horribly ridden with guilt and self-condemnation for their own desires. They don't trust themselves to stay away from these desires, so they want the government to make those desires illegal, so that they don't have to face the independent choice of engaging in them or not. They don't want to have self-control.
But what's worse is that they solipsistically imagine that everyone else is exactly the same way -- under a veneer of propriety, a raging Id of unfulfilled desires, so they think it would be good for the government to control everyone else very closely also."
That sums it up perfectly...they're people who are afraid of THEMSELVES...and instead of facing it like a sophisticated progressive, they want help in repressing IT...which is THEM.
...from the girl who really knows LOL!
Nope. Not even close. But please, feel free to try, try again! If you ever get good at stuffin' strawmen, maybe one day you'll stuff a halfway decent scarecrow! But so far... you're strawmen suck lemons!
Do you want me to start digging through my blog again?
But here, maybe this will help... Naaaah. You're pretty well hopeless.
You're giving me relationship advice? LOL
I also wanted to address "cruel and unusual punishments" in the context of 2 punishments Justin brought up: (1) public hanging, and (2) "They should be stuck in a stone room with bread and water, then spend their days working in a factory or something to make up for the cost of their confinement."
The constitution prohibits "cruel AND unusual punishments" so it must be both. Let's break it down, Scalia-style, with a dictionary.
A) Unusual
According to Merriam-Webster, unusual means:
: not usual : uncommon rare
http://m-w.com/dictionary/unusual
I think everyone would agree that both public hanging and a stone room with bread and water are very unusual punishments in today's America.
B) Cruel
1: disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings < a cruel tyrant >
2 a: causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain < a cruel joke > b: unrelieved by leniency < cruel punishment >
Is public hanging cruel? I think so, because it causes pain, injury and suffering that need not be caused in order to execute someone. The public humiliation, and the pain caused by hanging as opposed to other methods of execution, seem to me to be wantom, egregious, needless.
Is a stone room with bread and water cruel? I think this depends on the length of time one spends in such conditions. One day, maybe even one week, would not be particularly cruel.
But as many of you may know, the human body needs various nutrients, vitamins, minerals and proteins that are not present in either bread or water. Someone who only eats bread and water would die, slowly, of malnutrition and other attendant diseases, such as scurvy, which is caused by a lack of vitamin C. Is a sentence to a slow death by malnutrition cruel? I think so, even for someone who is sentenced to be executed. Not to mention someone who is only sentenced to 1 year in prison for mail fraud or drug possession or some other non-capital felony.
As such, the prison conditions of stone wall + bread + water become a death sentence to anyone who is sentenced to spend a long enough time in such conditions. Is it cruel and unusual to sentence someone to a slow and painful death for tax evasion or mail fraud or some other non-violent felony?
You decide.
Har...why did I know the Farmer was a faggot?...and there's a reason the faggot is a farmer, too...John, when the plump,cuddly ewe says baaah...that means no...go try the mare.
I think it's really scary that you have 5 children.
And it's wonderful to know that you have none. Even while you say that, I know that even you, not knowing their parentage, would absolutely love my children.
What do you do for work? Does your wife work? hahaha i know the answer to the latter.
We home-school our children, so she has been a teacher and mother for five years now. We actually tried to send my oldest to public school but the teachers kept trying to push ADD drugs on her. It's been amazing to see how much a child can learn when they get individual focus time at home. Even freakish liberal feminists like yourself choose to stay home with their children once they actually have a baby. Imagine a woman putting her children above her career for 15-20 years. I would call that a noble choice.
My moral convictions? Each individual person has the right to live his or her own life as he or she chooses while not hurting others. If he or she chooses to live in a society, he or she is a participant in that society and responsibility to that society as well. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Does your philosophy dictate that you cannot legislate any moral law like the ones we have with marijuana, prostitution, and incest - even if they are democratically instituted? That is a major limitation to democracy, isn't it?
To me, the central issue here is consent. It is generally accepted that minors cannot consent. Nor can animals. Adult men and women, however, can consent.
Generally accepted? What does that mean? Why can't 14 or 15 year olds sleep with an 18 year old if they choose? Why not 13, 12, 11, 10?
In saying "Generally accepted", you're saying that morality is decided by a majority. In that case you would have to agree with an anti-abortion law if the majority of people in the country agreed to it. BOOM! You fell into the trap just like every other relativist. HA!
So i see no problem with prostitution or polygamy. I don't really see what the big deal with incest is either. It's not like people are clamoring to do it, but for it being illegal. If it doesn't produce children, what's the problem?
Thank you for being honest. I was surprised to see you actually answer the question. Seriously. However, you will never get elected to any office in this country if you communicate those views. You better keep that under the rug from now on.
Even while you say that, I know that even you, not knowing their parentage, would absolutely love my children.
Oh of course, that's right, I forgot. Just because I have a vagina means that I have to LOOOOVE children. Bleh.
It's been amazing to see how much a child can learn when they get individual focus time at home.
Probably should have had only 1 child then, right?
Even freakish liberal feminists like yourself choose to stay home with their children once they actually have a baby.
Some do. But the labor participation rate for mothers in this country is about 60%, meaning that 60% of moms do work.
My mother never stayed at home.
Imagine a woman putting her children above her career for 15-20 years. I would call that a noble choice.
Maybe for some. Why do men require of women such great self-sacrifice? Why is that people like you think that the noblest thing for a woman to do is to become a servant of others? it noble for women to put their husbands and children ahead of themselves? Do you put your wife and children ahead of your own interests? I bet you guys fought over who is going to stay home with the kids, cuz you wanted to do it so much, didn't you? :) Maybe it's more noble to work on behalf of abused children. Or to work to cure cancer. Or to work as a middle east peace negotiator. Or the president. No?
We home-school our children, so she has been a teacher and mother for five years now. We actually tried to send my oldest to public school but the teachers kept trying to push ADD drugs on her.
Well, that's unfortunate. Maybe you should have moved somewhere with better schools? I wonder if your wife knows a foreign language or calculus and how she can teach that to your children.
And we still haven't heard about where you went to college, and what you do for work.
Does your philosophy dictate that you cannot legislate any moral law like the ones we have with marijuana, prostitution, and incest - even if they are democratically instituted? That is a major limitation to democracy, isn't it?
Democracy is not a limitless national referendum. It's not rule by popular vote. If we had national referenda on questions like "should criticizing the government be illegal?" those things might pass, but they would make our country less democratic, don't you think?
Just because something is popular (a majority of the people want it) doesn't mean it's democratic, or right.
Desegregation is a great example -- the South was vehemently against it, and the federal government forced it upon them. Had we held state referenda on desegregation, we still might have segregated states.
Generally accepted? What does that mean? Why can't 14 or 15 year olds sleep with an 18 year old if they choose? Why not 13, 12, 11, 10?
In saying "Generally accepted", you're saying that morality is decided by a majority. In that case you would have to agree with an anti-abortion law if the majority of people in the country agreed to it. BOOM! You fell into the trap just like every other relativist. HA!
There's actually scientific evidence of minors' brain development that suggests that someone's brain isn't fully developed, nor is their self fully "formed" until their late teens. We have to agree on a numerical line where that happens for convenience, so we've agreed on 18. If it were moved to 17 or 19, there would not be much difference.
You can read more about this research here.
You're not going to seriously argue, I think, that the legal line of adulthood is a completely arbitrary one. It is based on vast amounts of empirical evidence about human development. If you were to argue that the line is an arbitrary societal judgment, as arbitrary "homosexuality is bad," then you would be perfectly okay with granting adulthood at 10. Would taht be okay with you?
PS I appreciate you not replying to my posts about the rights of criminals. I'll take that as a white flag on your part on that issue.
Thank you for being honest. I was surprised to see you actually answer the question. Seriously. However, you will never get elected to any office in this country if you communicate those views. You better keep that under the rug from now on.
Well, I don't plan on it, because I can't imagine myself being a politician.
But I do want to ask you, you obviously seem to support incest being illegal. For what reasons, I can only surmise. But how about mentally retarded people having children? Should that be illegal? How about people who are carriers of a genetic disease, or who have it themselves, in which case the likelihood of their offspring having it is quite high? Should them having children also be illegal, like incest?
Har...why did I know the Farmer was a faggot?...and there's a reason the faggot is a farmer, too...John, when the plump,cuddly ewe says baaah...that means no...go try the mare.
Homophobe alert! Homophobe alert!
Another gay-friendly DNC hypocrite comes out of the closet.
Hi skyv!
Just because something is popular (a majority of the people want it) doesn't mean it's democratic, or right.
Who decides what is right? A majority?
BTW, I completely agree with the statement above. Democracy will likely be the fall of our nation.
"Every form of government tends to perish by excess of its basic principles."
"Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty and dies with chaos"
- Will Durant
Another one of my favorite Will Durant quotes:
"Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias. For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies. Leave men free, and their natural inequalities will multiply almost geometrically, as in England and America in the nineteenth century under laissez-faire. To check the growth of inequality, liberty must be sacrificed,
as in Russia after 1917. Even when repressed, inequality grows; only
the man who is below the average in economic ability desires equality;
those who are conscious of superior ability desire freedom, and in the end superior ability has its way."
Who decides what is right? A majority?
It's a great question. I think it can't just be a majority. Our founding fathers feared a mob rule. That's why they originally had the president be elected by the state legislatures rather than popular vote.
But it can't just be a small, politically unaccountable elite either.
I think we've got a great balancing between the democratically elected and accountable legislature, which represent the "mob" and the the courts, which are less democratically accountable, and therefore can be more independent and reasoned, and are generally more educated, and therefore represent the elite.
For example, lots of laws that the supreme court has struck down would not be able to be repealed in a democratic legislature because of the political costs of such a repeal.
I wish very much that you would answer my other questions, in particular as to your occupation, and your views of the reproduction of mentally retarded and genetic disease carriers.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Will Durant was a very conservative conventional, western-centered historian.
PS I appreciate you not replying to my posts about the rights of criminals. I'll take that as a white flag on your part on that issue.
I think my position on the eighth amendment was well put in my previous post - your reply was just a bunch of legalese mumbo jumbo in my opinion. It's amazing how liberals will fight for the rights of convicted criminals and ignore the victims of crime.
I do not know what Will Durant's political views were - all I know is that he was a brilliant man.
I wish very much that you would answer my other questions, in particular as to your occupation, and your views of the reproduction of mentally retarded and genetic disease carriers.
I am a software engineer. As far as reproductive rights of mentally retarded and genetic disease carriers, I believe they should have the right to reproduce.
On a side note, I find it amusing that liberals, for some crazy reason, want to force pet owners to spay and neuter their pets. Amazing hypocrisy there, when they supposedly love animals they would choose to take away their born right to reproduce. Just something I've always thought was funny. My personal belief is that it should be the choice of the pet owner.
I think my position on the eighth amendment was well put in my previous post - your reply was just a bunch of legalese mumbo jumbo in my opinion.
You know, not everything that is simple is automatically right. Sometimes, the right answer is very nuanced and complicated.
However, in this case, the Bill of Rights couldn't be clearer in that convicted criminals have at least 2 rights, to be free from excessive fines and to be free from cruel and unusual punishments.
Plus, do you deny that your proposed system of a bread and water diet would lead to every convict dying within a year of imprisonment? did you even think about this? Or are you okay with giving every convict the death penalty?
PS John Quincy Adams, a founding father and a US president, defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston massacre because he believed everyone deserves a fair trial and adequate legal representation.
He wrote in his diary:
Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right.
On a side note, I find it amusing that liberals, for some crazy reason, want to force pet owners to spay and neuter their pets.
Evidence of this? Where do liberals want to force people to do this?
As far as reproductive rights of mentally retarded and genetic disease carriers, I believe they should have the right to reproduce.
But that would produce the same harm as children of incest. Why one, but not the other?
Plus, do you deny that your proposed system of a bread and water diet would lead to every convict dying within a year of imprisonment? did you even think about this? Or are you okay with giving every convict the death penalty?
I'm sorry, but that is such a weak argument. When I say bread and water, I'm really saying basic sustenance without luxury. You're arguing semantics again!
PS John Quincy Adams, a founding father and a US president, defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston massacre because he believed everyone deserves a fair trial and adequate legal representation.
I am talking about convicted criminals. You're putting words in my mouth again. Of course the accused has the right to a fair trial and adequate legal representation.
Evidence of this? Where do liberals want to force people to do this?
You ever heard of PETA? Look and see what policies they are pushing for. Many communities are putting in laws like this including my own. Only registered breeders are allowed to let their pets reproduce in my town.
Ok, fair enough, just clearing things up.
You were still wrong when you said that convicted criminals enjoy no rights whatsoever. The Bill of Rights gives them 2 explicit rights. Plus, why should they be stripped of other rights, such as the right to worship their chosen faith while in prison?
And when you say we don't care about the victims, what exactly do you mean? That we don't want to give the victims an opportunity to take just revenge on the perpetrator? first off, that ignores the fact that many crimes have no victims. But secondly, that is the whole point of having a fair trial and a neutral arbiter presiding over the proceedings -- to prevent heated emotion from taking place of justice. Should we aim for justice or for unbridled revenge?
And you don't address the problem of those wrongfully convicted.
You ever heard of PETA? Look and see what policies they are pushing for.
PETA is not an organization that represents mainstream liberals. And you know that.
Many communities are putting in laws like this including my own.
Was it "teh liberals" who passed those laws in your town? Why don't you run for town councilman or something?
Correct me if I am wrong, but Will Durant was a very conservative conventional, western-centered historian.
Wrong, as usual. from Wikipedia
He fought for equal wages, women's suffrage and fairer working conditions for the American labor force. Durant not only wrote on many topics but also put his ideas into effect. Durant, it has been said widely, attempted to bring philosophy to the common man. He authored The Story of Philosophy, The Mansions of Philosophy, and, with the help of his wife, Ariel, wrote The Story of Civilization. He also wrote magazine articles.
He tried to improve understanding of viewpoints of human beings and to have others forgive foibles and human waywardness. He chided the comfortable insularity of what is now known as Eurocentrism, by pointing out in Our Oriental Heritage that Europe was only a "a jagged promontory of Asia." He complained of "the provincialism of our traditional histories which began with Greece and summed up Asia in a line" and said they showed "a possibly fatal error of perspective and intelligence."
In 1900, Will was educated by the Jesuits in St. Peter's Preparatory School and, later, Saint Peter's College in Jersey City, New Jersey. In 1905, he became a Socialist. He graduated in 1907. He worked as a reporter for Arthur Brisbane's New York Evening Journal for ten dollars a week. At the Evening Journal, he wrote several articles on sexual criminals.
Following this, in 1907, he began teaching Latin, French, English and geometry at Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey. Durant was also made librarian at the college.
In 1911 he left the Seminary. He became the teacher and chief pupil of the Ferrer Modern School, an experiment in libertarian education. Alden Freeman, a supporter of the Ferrer Modern School, sponsored him for a tour of Europe. At the Modern School, he fell in love with and married a pupil, thirteen years his junior, Chaya (Ida) Kaufman, whom he later nicknamed "Ariel". The Durants had one daughter, Ethel, and adopted a son, Louis. Ariel would contribute materially to all the volumes of The Story of Civilization but was given title page credit starting only with Volume VII, The Age of Reason Begins.
In 1913, he resigned his post as teacher. To support themselves, he began lecturing in a Presbyterian church for five- and ten-dollar fees; the material for these lectures became the starting point for The Story of Civilization. Freeman paid his tuition for the graduate school of Columbia University.
His "Story of Philosophy" and his profiles of specific philosophers became my roadmap to the study of both history and philosophy.
And you don't address the problem of those wrongfully convicted.
I don't believe that is a problem in our nation. It's impossible of course to be 100% correct, but it's also impossible to prove anything outside of a reasonable doubt. Hence, the charge of the jury. When the ability to reason is gone, then we are in trouble.
Should we aim for justice or for unbridled revenge?
I don't believe in revenge, I believe in justice. If there is a law broken, it should be enforced according to the law. My view is that many laws are not being enforced (illegal immigration for example), and that lawyers are taking advantage of other holes in the system to make a ton of money. They also knowingly set guilty criminals free in the same manner. Those holes need to be plugged up, but how can they be when lawyers run politics? The punishment for crimes has become very weak in the US and Europe in the past half-century due to wealth and comfort. These things are cyclical though. We weaken our justice system until crime is rampant, then we crack down on it with strict enforcement and stronger penalties.
Our generation has never seen truly hard times. We have become weak. Living primarily for entertainment ans the arts - things only afforded by people of a free and wealthy nation - and at the same time losing the wisdom of our forefathers. When the shit hits the fan, the conservative leaders will come and save the day like Churchhill did for Britain in 1940 when Neville Chamberlain failed his nation because of his weak kneed liberal policies.
Perhaps I am wrong about him. (old doggie, can't you learn a new trick, admitting when you're wrong?)
His "Story of Philosophy" and his profiles of specific philosophers became my roadmap to the study of both history and philosophy.
Then again, if you emerged as you are, perhaps his scholarship is not that great. That is perhaps the greatest un-endorsement of his work possible, that it helped make Farmer John into who he is.
BOOM! You fell into the trap just like every other relativist. HA!
Boy, this little fruitcake is REALLY stupid...
Think so, Emma?
From a peaceful and orderly seminary existence, Durant passed on to the most radical circles in the "bedlam" of Manhattan. He tried -- and failed -- to convert Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman from anarchism to socialism. In 1911, he became the teacher and (as he put it) chief pupil of the Ferrer Modern School, an experiment in libertarian education. A sponsor of the school, Alden Freeman, took a fancy to the shy instructor and treated him to a summer tour of Europe to "broaden his borders." Returning to the States, Durant fell in love with one of his pupils, whose sprightly vivacity led him to call her "Puck" and, in his writings, "Ariel" -- the names by which she became known to the rest of the world.
Over the years, Durant’s reputation as a philosopher and historian has grown; his writings, which have sold over 17 million copies, have been enjoyed by individuals from all walks of life. Among his most impassioned readers (and friends) were Mahatma Gandhi, George Bernard Shaw, Clarence Darrow and Bertrand Russell – although it was always for the common man, rather than the scholastic or academic audience, that Durant wrote.
"you will never get elected to any office in this country if you communicate those views. You better keep that under the rug from now on."
Haha...good advice coming from a 25percenter.
And you don't address the problem of those wrongfully convicted.
I don't believe that is a problem in our nation.
Really? In Illinois, since 1977, more death penalty sentenced have been overturned because of exoneration than actual people have been executed. MORE THAN HALF were wrongly convicted. How 'bout that?
My view is that many laws are not being enforced (illegal immigration for example), and that lawyers are taking advantage of other holes in the system to make a ton of money.
Show me proof of criminal defense lawyers becoming exceedingly wealthy. It's just not there. There are plenty of lawyers who make a lot of money, but it's not criminal defense lawyers.
They also knowingly set guilty criminals free in the same manner.
Only judges have the power to do that. Are you talking about "technicalities"? Or have ou been watching too much law & order?
Those holes need to be plugged up, but how can they be when lawyers run politics? The punishment for crimes has become very weak in the US and Europe in the past half-century due to wealth and comfort. These things are cyclical though. We weaken our justice system until crime is rampant, then we crack down on it with strict enforcement and stronger penalties.
But isn't it true that crime right now is at its lowest point in decades, even though, according to you, punishment has become "very weak"?
Our generation has never seen truly hard times. We have become weak. Living primarily for entertainment ans the arts - things only afforded by people of a free and wealthy nation - and at the same time losing the wisdom of our forefathers. When the shit hits the fan, the conservative leaders will come and save the day like Churchhill did for Britain in 1940 when Neville Chamberlain failed his nation because of his weak kneed liberal policies.
Well, we've already heard from you what it is you want - Singapore. A country where there are laws to govern every minute little thing, and flogging is a form of punishment.
I'm afraid few Americans, both on the left and right, would willingly support that kind of thing. What happened to small government, and personal responsibility?
Also, why is removal of liberty not enough punishment for you? What crimes, other than illegal immigration, do you see not punished sufficiently?
"On a side note, I find it amusing that liberals, for some crazy reason, want to force pet owners to spay and neuter their pets. Amazing hypocrisy there, when they supposedly love animals they would choose to take away their born right to reproduce."
Suhweet shit...just when I thought he couldn't get any more demented. This is why these crackpots home school...they know there's nowhere on earth their poor children will hear crackpots like the crackpots the HAVE TO listen to at home.
But that would produce the same harm as children of incest. Why one, but not the other?
Well, incest invariably leads to pregnancy. (especially when you're a so called pro-life nut-job like me) I think that because of the problems with incestuous pregnancy, it should be a discouraged, and even outlawed practice. However, for second cousins, adopted cousins, etc, allowances could be made. Heck, I can't even think of a biblical argument against that, but I am not as much of a Bible thumper as most conservatives, so I can't quote any scripture.
I am indeed a proud Christian, but I don't fit in the modern Christian movement. It's too much of a business. The bible to me is an important piece of religious history, but not the inerrant word of God. It was indeed written and translated by man, and is prone to the flaws of man. However, I see deep wisdom in Christ's words and have faith in a benevolent God. To me the greatest evidence of God is in the magnificent order of nature and science - and many famous scientists have felt the same way as I do. When I had my first child, that sealed the deal. There was no doubt left in my mind. Anyway, I figured that would be the next thing you'd lash out at me for.
Evidence of this? Where do liberals want to force people to do this?
I can provide evidence that some liberals want to make this a requirement...I'm one of them...hundreds of thousands of cats and dogs die horrible deaths from freezing, starving and disease every year because there are no homes for them. The lucky ones are euthanized in animal shelters. Only irresponsible fools don't do this in the first place.
What happened to small government, and personal responsibility?
Strict enforcement of law and punishment of violent criminals has nothing to do with small government, and personal responsibility. I'm saying that we have laws already, they just need to be enforced with stronger penalties. What part of that don't you understand? I never said I want to punish every little minute thing - like spitting on the sidewalk or chewing gum or whatever you were saying.
"Really? In Illinois, since 1977, more death penalty sentenced have been overturned because of exoneration than actual people have been executed. MORE THAN HALF were wrongly convicted. How 'bout that?"
And that's just the tip of the old berg...have you seen some of the figures from Texas and the Innocenc Project...these tight assed, vengeful, little freaks don't care how many innocents are murdered or jailed by the state...they just want that screaming, inner fear quelled no matter the cost.
Durant is like anyone else who wrote voluminously...even whackos like these can find a selected passage here and there...like Adolf did with Nietzsche who hated authoritarian, anti-semite freaks like him. Durant would have been appalled by these maleducated fools. And Ariel...wuhell...
Strict enforcement of law and punishment of violent criminals has nothing to do with small government, and personal responsibility. I'm saying that we have laws already, they just need to be enforced with stronger penalties.
(1) Which laws, in particular, do you see not being punished enough, apart from illegal immigration?
(2) Why is deprivation of freedom not punishment enough?
(3) Deterrence and punishment can only reduce crime so much. People commit crimes in prison and even when the penalties are extremely harsh (see Iran and Saudi Arabia). You will never be able to eliminate all crime, not even in prison. that is not to say that we shouldn't' try to reduce crime, I just don't see the problems that you see vis-a-vis punishment.
I never said I want to punish every little minute thing - like spitting on the sidewalk or chewing gum or whatever you were saying.
But you did praise singapore as a model for the US follow, no?
They used to hang people in England for thinking bad thoughts..it was a national pastime ...and crime was rampant...you are a shallow fool...a just society is the only deterrent unless you have a society so locked down that it's already a prison in itself...and sooner or later it will erupt into violence and revolution.
(1)...
I have already enumerated the crimes I think should be punishable by death.
(2) Why is deprivation of freedom not punishment enough?
Because it is too comfortable. Many prisoners see it as free food and shelter along with social benefits. I personally believe that the sentences could be much shorter and the prisons would be less full if it were as I had described above. There should be no unneeded comforts or social interaction with other prisoners. I also said that prison should be self funding through hard work - it should not be a place where people are lounging around living off of the taxpayer. Furthermore, for prisoners that follow the rules, they should have the opportunity to become educated - primarily with their own earnings, and possibly lightly supplemented by the taxpayer.
(3) Deterrence and punishment can only reduce crime so much. People commit crimes in prison and even when the penalties are extremely harsh (see Iran and Saudi Arabia). You will never be able to eliminate all crime, not even in prison. that is not to say that we shouldn't' try to reduce crime, I just don't see the problems that you see vis-a-vis punishment.
I think that crime would be reduced to an extent with a program like the one I described, but like I said before, you cannot change peoples morality through legislation. That is an deeper issue with society that starts at the family. We've gone through that.
Anyway, I have to quit these discussions. I'm so addicted to political discussion that I've wasted way too much time on here. I've enjoyed talking to you, Dora, because at least you think somewhat logically and are honest about your views. I respect that. I'm sure you don't care about whom I respect, but I thought I'd tell you anyway. I do not agree with your philosophy on almost anything, but it's always fun to discuss. As for the rest of you liberal clowns...
(1)...
I have already enumerated the crimes I think should be punishable by death.
so you just want more death penalty? I thought you meant that there are other crimes that you think should be punished more than they are now.
(2) Why is deprivation of freedom not punishment enough?
Because it is too comfortable. Many prisoners see it as free food and shelter along with social benefits. I personally believe that the sentences could be much shorter and the prisons would be less full if it were as I had described above...
Oh, Justin. You don't have a free spirit. All you seem to care about is material comforts. You'd gladly live in Singaporian conditions if it meant less crime.
Don't you value freedom? To me, the deprivation of freedom is the greatest possible deprivation. It deprives you of your independent choice, the very basis of being a human rather than any other animal.
You seem to think that the deprivation of material comfort is the greatest deprivation. To me, that is ... the mentality of worms.
There should be no unneeded comforts or social interaction with other prisoners.
Then you'll be releasing dozens of mentally ill sociopaths. Boy that should improve society! lol
I also said that prison should be self funding through hard work - it should not be a place where people are lounging around living off of the taxpayer.
do you even know what the Gulag was?
Furthermore, for prisoners that follow the rules, they should have the opportunity to become educated - primarily with their own earnings, and possibly lightly supplemented by the taxpayer.
where are they going to get this money?
I think that crime would be reduced to an extent with a program like the one I described, but like I said before, you cannot change peoples morality through legislation. That is an deeper issue with society that starts at the family. We've gone through that.
But isn't this what you guys love to say, the throwback to the past? "We used to have more punishment, we used to have more family-centric culture," but we used to have a lot more crime too. WTF?!
I've enjoyed talking to you, Dora, because at least you think somewhat logically and are honest about your views. I respect that. I'm sure you don't care about whom I respect, but I thought I'd tell you anyway.
I don't respect you at all. You have no value of freedom and you would sacrifice it first before anything else (see above in this post), you want a totalitarian society, and most disturbingly, you seem to be thirsty for inflicting suffering upon others, the others you have chosen here are convicted criminals. Your desire to inflict as much pain as possible, to execute as many people as possible, to deprive prisoners of as much comfort as possible comes off as heartless, cruel and wantonly vengeful. I can't respect someone like that.
Dora says:"I don't respect you at all. You have no value of freedom and you would sacrifice it first before anything else (see above in this post), you want a totalitarian society, and most disturbingly, you seem to be thirsty for inflicting suffering upon others, the others you have chosen here are convicted criminals. Your desire to inflict as much pain as possible, to execute as many people as possible, to deprive prisoners of as much comfort as possible comes off as heartless, cruel and wantonly vengeful. I can't respect someone like that."
Hear, hear...that is one of the best things I've heard said on this hellish site since I checked it out. The most important thing that liberals and moderates have to learn is that these rightist are NOT just well meaning citizens who simply have "another point of view." They are nasty, vengeful, morally deformed beings who are quite literally our enemies...and who have brought us to a point culturally and environmentally from which we may never recover. They're "pt of view" is a literal, mortal, physical danger.
"I don't respect you at all. You have no value of freedom and you would sacrifice it first before anything else (see above in this post), you want a totalitarian society, and most disturbingly, you seem to be thirsty for inflicting suffering upon others, the others you have chosen here are convicted criminals. Your desire to inflict as much pain as possible, to execute as many people as possible, to deprive prisoners of as much comfort as possible comes off as heartless, cruel and wantonly vengeful. I can't respect someone like that."
That's exactly the hate speech I expected from you, still, I stick to what I said. You were honest about your views: you are pro-prostitution, pro-incest, pro-drug, pro-polygamy, pro-abortion, and a very hateful person to boot. You call me part of the 25%'rs - maybe true, but you've put yourself in the 1%'rs. Thanks for exposing yourself for who you really are. I respect everyones right to believe as they so choose and am tolerant and respectful of those views. As I said before, I respect anybody who is not afraid to come out and take a side on any of these touchy issues.
Oh blah blah, I'm so hateful.
I'm not the one who lusts for the blood of convicts (wrongfully convicted or not), supports public hanging, mistreating prisoners, and a totalitarian government.
You don't know what freedom is if you are so quick to give it up, if you think it's not the most important thing you have.
Me and the founding fathers -- we're together on this liberty thing. You're alone in the dark woods of petty materialism and anti-intellectual mob vengefulness.
Post a Comment