The tenth anniversary of the September 11th attacks has now come and gone. We’ve seen a lot of media focus on patriotic flag waving and memorials for the dead. That’s fine in itself, but something was missing. Something very serious was virtually ignored by the corporate media, that is, besides the Bush war of aggression based on falsehoods around al-Qaeda, Saddam and non-existent WMD’s.
We may survive that war, but it’s a real question whether the formerly free democratic republic of the United States of America will survive the anti-Constitutional over-reaction by politicians doing their best to look tough on terrorism. The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Warner Defense Authorization Act, the FISA Amendment, and who knows how many executive orders have been implemented and locked into our government’s expanding abuses of power.
There was little media mention of an incident at Detroit's airport on this past September 11th.
Someone apparently got nervous on an inbound plane.
After the plane landed it was routed to a vacant area on the tarmac and greeted by heavily armed and armored officers with dogs.
An innocent woman and two men she didn’t know were shackled by machine gun carrying officers and shoved off the plane. They were taken by the SWAT team for interrogation. The rest of the passengers were also taken away by bus to be interviewed at police headquarters. Nothing was found and there were no charges against the three passengers.
Why? Who knows? No explanation was given. Some frightened passenger or crew member saw two Indian men and the woman sitting in the same row and panicked.
The woman’s name is Shoshana Hebshi, an American citizen with a Saudi father and a Jewish mother. You can read her account here.
Apparently, all it takes for fear to seize hold of a citizen in the land of the free and home of the brave is a brown passenger or two with accents on a plane.
Are we turning into a nation of cowardly sniveling snitches? Not entirely, but fear, combined with politicians’ utter disregard for the Bill of Rights is killing our country faster than al-Qaeda could have done with a thousand more attacks. If we lack the courage of our convictions and founding principles, our country we knew all our lives is doomed.
The corporate lock on our politicians is bad enough. If the voters wake up we can change that. But nothing will change for the better when we react at the highest and lowest levels out of simple fear. FDR’s words ring vividly true today, “All we have to fear is fear itself”.
And that fear is being reinforced by authorities and politicians. Mayor Bloomberg has advised New Yorkers, “When you see something, say something!"
“Like what?” asks Nat Hentoff in his piece at Cato.org. Just what is "suspicious activity"?
They won’t say.
Hentoff continues:
This call to report to police or the FBI suspicious behavior by anybody has led the American Civil Liberties Union to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (ACLU.org, Aug. 25) "challenging the government's failure to release documents about the FBI's nationwide system of collecting and sharing (with other intelligence agencies) so-called 'Suspicious Activity Reports' from local, state and federal law enforcement agencies."
I make a point of following debates and releases among Republican 2012 presidential aspirants, and never once have I heard any concern about this omnivorous tracking of, as the Constitution begins, We The People. What does Gov. Rick Perry think of it? President Barack Obama, of course, thoroughly approves of this obliteration of our privacy to protect national security — without any of us being told we've been targeted.
This eGuardian program, begun in 2009, explains the ACLU, "allows the FBI to collect information about vague and expansively defined 'suspicious activity' from law enforcement and intelligence officials across the country, as well as from the public."
Yes, from the public. If one of us utterly detests a neighbor or someone where we work, why not report him or her to the authorities for "suspicious activity"?
There's never been a better time to support the ACLU, folks. Please consider it your patriotic duty. I do.
We have now entered the Orwellian nightmare of a nation of fearful snitches running to the Thought Police whenever they imagine someone to be “suspicious”.
This is our national tragedy unfolding before our very eyes. Neither Obama nor the Republicans are even mentioning what is happening to our civil liberties.
You know what? I think the Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of “suspicious activity” and should be taken away for interrogation. In order to be released they will need to recite for us the Bill of Rights and be reminded of their oath to defend them. And if they fail to do so, send them away for indefinite detention. They are not on our side.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
127 comments:
Early in the post-9/11 hysteria, I think there was a law requiring (or at least encouraging) postal workers, delivery people and meter readers to be on the lookout for "suspicious" evidence of, well, anything, as they went from house to house.
At the time, I joked to several people that I might write a letter saying "Dear Osama: We sure snowed 'em, didn't we. So far, nobody suspects me and nobody knows where you are. Your secret is safe with me." And then I'd "accidentally" leave the letter sitting unsealed next to the utility meter.
Every person I joked to about this, didn't think it was a bit funny. "Are you kidding?!? They'd take you away! You'd never be seen again!"
Tom, that law was being passed at about the same time that the Bush family was acquiring and expanding Oncor.
Oncor is a company that maintains electrical systems for many public utility companies.
What this law also allows is for corporations to keep their own records in case they are ever needed by law enforcement.
Essentially pushed for and got passed a law that allows his family, to use thousands of workers out and about our major cities as data collection principles to keep watch on our habits.
It essentially decriminalized 'Peeping Tom' behavior for employees of Oncor.
I am one of Dave Dubya's lap dogs and just want to apologize to free.
The facts are I am a dumb fuk who likes to read Karl Marx. I also lie about having a bad back so that I can collect SSI and freeload off taxpayers.
Dave, you say a couple of things here:
"If the voters wake up we can change that."
"I think the Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of 'suspicious activity' and should be taken away for interrogation... They are not on our side."
What precisely are you proposing voters can change given what you think of both parties?
Weaseldog,
Here is the Executive Leadership of Oncor:
Bob Shapard – Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Don Clevenger – Senior Vice President, External Affairs
David Davis – Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Debbi Elmer – Senior Vice President, Human Resources
Jim Greer – Senior Vice President, Asset Management and Engineering
Brenda Jackson – Senior Vice President and Chief Customer Officer
Charles Jenkins – Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Allen Nye – Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Brenda Pulis – Senior Vice President, Distribution
Here's their Board of Directors:
Nora Mead Brownell
Richard C. Byers
Thomas M. Dunning
Robert A. Estrada
Thomas D. Ferguson
Monte F. Ford
William T. Hill, Jr.
Jeffrey Liaw
Robert S. Shapard
Richard W. Wortham, III
Steven J. Zucchet
Wanting just the facts, I went further into Oncor's website and searched for the name Bush.
The Bush name was found 5 times, in the Securities Form 10-K. Each time it referenced a law then Gov Busch signed in 1999. In a list of management contacts there is a Sherry Bush listed as a Project Coordinator in Arlington, TX.
Can you advise where else I should search for information to support your statement that the Bush family was acquiring and expanding Oncor?
Dave,
What would you say if the exact same scenario had happened, but the plane blew up ten minutes later?
Would you have posted this same post, but with an RIP section at the end?
Since this does not happen every day, which, would be a red flag, perhaps they had probably cause?
Maybe even probable cause.
John Myste,
I agree with your post 100%, it probably was probable cause.
Pundits primarily point-out pat-downs produce poor results!
Anonymous said..., "Can you advise where else I should search for information to support your statement that the Bush family was acquiring and expanding Oncor?"
That's a good question Anonymous, how do you unravel the connections in shell corporations?
I found this tidbit:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/20/idUS261113+20-Feb-2008+BW20080220
It looks like the entire board was turned over in 2008.
You might look at the who was on the board in 2004-2006.
An article I read back in that era detailed how various cousins and inlaws to the Bush family, controlled all of the board seats.
I can't find any articles like that now.
John Myste said..., "What would you say if the exact same scenario had happened, but the plane blew up ten minutes later?"
Or what if William Shatner saw some sort of creature pulling parts out of one of the engines?
"Since this does not happen every day, which, would be a red flag, perhaps they had probably cause?"
I thought at first he was writing about the very recent incident where the same thing happened, because a couple were having sex in the first class bathroom.
We're spending huge sums of money on militarizing our civilian infrastructure, and the number of terrorists we catch has been uninfected.
That's a lot of money being spent, and a lot of new hires that need to stuff to do.
I see this ongoing mini-dramas as make-work to justify huge budgets with no results.
That's why we have the new emphasis on the Drug War. The Homeland Security, Military Hardware and training is being repurposed to heat up the drug war.
Dave,
I share your concern. Congress greatly overreacted during the Bush years and Obama has failed to correct those mistakes. The GOP has been paranoid ever since 8/11 and the Democrats have been weak-spined and overly cautious, so they have turned into a party of wimpy yes men, with Joe LIEberman sitting at the top of the pile. We lost more than lives and buildings on 9/11: we lost our freedom!
Jack,
After the shock and horror set in as I watched people jump and the towers fall, I felt a deep knot inside, knowing how certain this would result in loss of some of our rights.
At least I wasn't rounded up like the "usual suspects" shortly afterwards. Many innocent people were detained.
Tom,
Although I appreciate your sense of humor, it is getting to the point where we cannot even joke about the "T" word.
Throughout the entire country public and sporting events are becoming more like airport security screens. I went to an NFL game last year and and was surprised at the metal detector scanning of fans entering the stadium. This trend is only going to increase.
Wease,
The doors have been opened for not only corporate snooping. The NSA, CIA, FBI and who knows who else are now in the business of data mining and collection of all electronic communications of citizens. Who can possibly believe there will not be countless undetected abuses?
HR,
By Democrat and Republican “suspicious activity” I mean undermining our Bill of Rights.
What I’ve been proposing all along is more democracy. Informed voters can reverse corporatocracy back to democracy if enough show up. The more people vote the greater the democracy. This is why the GOP is doing its best to suppress voter turnout and deny voting rights. As I previously illustrated abundantly, democracy is not on the list of Republican values. The same is also true for many Democrats. More informed voters, as opposed to fewerm would bring in more democratic leaning Democrats.
What I’m proposing in this post is awareness of what has happened to our Bill of Rights, especially concerning the reactions to, and exploitation, of 9-11. Wouldn’t you prefer more Americans understood their Bill of Rights and voiced their concerns to their representatives?
John,
Hypothetically speaking, there would still be many incidents of panic-induced false alarms. My favorite hypothetical is what if Bush cared enough about the threat of terrorism to act on his August 2001 warning? The problem is what constitutes “suspicious activity”? And how is it probable cause? If there was something significant enough that alarmed someone to call a SWAT team, wouldn’t it be a good idea to let us know what that would be? Shouldn’t there be some basic official standards to guide the frightened sheeple? Or could a fearful population be in the interests of certain parties?
I hope my questions helped answer your questions.
Just the FOX(R),
Your amusing alliterative sentence will remain for our entertainment. If you have something halfway sensible to say, we will allow it.
Weasldog,
John Myste said..., "What would you say if the exact same scenario had happened, but the plane blew up ten minutes later?"
Or what if William Shatner saw some sort of creature pulling parts out of one of the engines?
I am only interested in the first question. However, since you seem concerned about the second, if Shatner reports this, we would be irresponsible not to follow up.
I thought at first he was writing about the very recent incident where the same thing happened, because a couple were having sex in the first class bathroom. I think you are trying to prove that it does happen every day because you think you found another instance. If that is where you are going with this, I will try to remain respectful of the fact that you think you are being logical.
We're spending huge sums of money on militarizing our civilian infrastructure, and the number of terrorists we catch has been uninfected. You have no idea the number of terrorist plots effected. You made this up to support your faith.
That's a lot of money being spent, and a lot of new hires that need to stuff to do. More jobs! Yes!
I see this ongoing mini-dramas as make-work to justify huge budgets with no results. Are you saying you actually believe that some very high official said, “we need to the boys over to this plane so we will get media exposure?” The burden of proof is on you, as is the case with all conspiracy theorists.
That's why we have the new emphasis on the Drug War. The Homeland Security, Military Hardware and training is being repurposed to heat up the drug war. I don’t ascribe to your faith.
Dubya,
That there will be countless abused in a bureaucracy is a given. I don’t deny that at all.
The problem is what constitutes “suspicious activity”? And how is it probable cause? While this question matters, it does nothing to support your case. We know that something is suspicious enough to be labeled probably cause.
If there was something significant enough that alarmed someone to call a SWAT team, wouldn’t it be a good idea to let us know what that would be? Very good point. It should be required unless the authorities can give us a valid reason why it poses a risk to national security. Very good point. On this point alone, you and Weasledog would have won the mini debate if Weasledog had not helped.
Shouldn’t there be some basic official standards to guide the frightened sheeple? Or could a fearful population be in the interests of certain parties? A fearful population is in the interest of the Republican Party because they are typically perceived be stronger on terrorism. However, it is a huge leap of faith to think the GOP is behind this SWAT action. Without evidence, it is a little nuts, frankly.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/05/are-you-following-a-bot/8448/
Are You Following a Bot?
***How to manipulate social movements by hacking Twitter***
By Andy Isaacson
One day last February, a Twitter user in California named Billy received a tweet from @JamesMTitus, identified in his profile as a "24 year old dude" from Christchurch, New Zealand, who had the avatar of a tabby cat. "If you could bring one character to life from your favorite book, who would it be?," @JamesMTitus asked. Billy tweeted back, "Jesus," to which @JamesMTitus replied: "honestly? no fracking way. ahahahhaa." Their exchange continued, and Billy began following @JamesMTitus. It probably never occurred to him that the Kiwi dude with an apparent love of cats was, in fact, a robot.
***JamesMTitus was manufactured by cyber-security specialists in New Zealand participating in a two-week social-engineering experiment organized by the Web Ecology Project. Based in Boston, the group had conducted demographic analyses of Chatroulette and studies of Twitter networks during the recent Middle East protests. It was now interested in a question of particular concern to social-media experts and marketers: Is it possible not only to infiltrate social networks, but also to influence them on a large scale?***
continued....
I've only half jokingly said we should randomly arm 10 passengers per plane. Let the terrorists do the profiling.
"Which one of these crazy infidels has the pistols?"
John Myste says, "Are you saying you actually believe that some very high official said, “we need to the boys over to this plane so we will get media exposure?” The burden of proof is on you, as is the case with all conspiracy theorists."
It never occurred to me that this might be about media exposure.
What would make you think that?
I wrote, "That's why we have the new emphasis on the Drug War. The Homeland Security, Military Hardware and training is being repurposed to heat up the drug war."
To which you responded, "I don’t ascribe to your faith."
Here's a link to a Senate Judiciary Hearing on the topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSXMW2FMC7A&feature=player_embedded
I doubt you'll watch it. As you pointed out, for you it's about faith. You have faith in our government and our politicians. I don't.
Dave said, "Shouldn’t there be some basic official standards to guide the frightened sheeple? Or could a fearful population be in the interests of certain parties? A fearful population is in the interest of the Republican Party because they are typically perceived be stronger on terrorism."
John replies, "However, it is a huge leap of faith to think the GOP is behind this SWAT action. Without evidence, it is a little nuts, frankly."
I like the way you go one more step in logic, saying something no one else has specifically said, then use your argument to poke fun at the logic you created.
So yes John, on it's face, your argument is a little nuts.
But I think it's also nuts to argue that the Republican party has a pro-terrorism position, or that the Republic Party has a platform in which they'd like to be viewed as soft on crime.
You love hypotheticals.
Hypothetically speaking, if that action had actually stopped a terrorist plot, do you believe the Republican Party would spend hours praising Obama and then Democratic Party for the capture?
Weasledog,
I wish I had more time to expose your fallacious logic, but I just don't.
I doubt you'll watch it. As you pointed out, for you it's about faith. You have faith in our government and our politicians. I don't.
Actually, I did not commit to a position. Thinking your automatic nuttiness is questionable does not require me to think the opposite.
Again, you had faith that I had the opposite opinion.
Weasldog,
Hypothetically speaking, if that action had actually stopped a terrorist plot, do you believe the Republican Party would spend hours praising Obama and then Democratic Party for the capture?
Your style of debating is odd. You are trying to prove one things by trying to refute another that was not up for discussion, and your method of rebuttal of the non existent topic is argument by exasperated vehemence.
Dave basically won the mini-debate if your logic is removed from the equation. Therefore, I am unclear on why you are still trying to debate. I am further completely shocked that Dave is not screaming "Don't help me!"
Thank you John for not watching the video from a Senate Judiciary Meeting on abuses of the Patriot Act.
By not watching it will allow you to continue to believe in things without facts or data to support your beliefs. But at least you won't be harmed by learning something that runs counter to your belief system.
Have a nice day.
John, you're not actually here to engage in debate. You rarely cite references and you never follow references provided by others.
You're here because you're paid to be here.
You are deferential to Dave, because it's his blog and you don't want to get a demerit by getting blocked.
Free,
That is an entertaining notion. What I'm thinking is since real threats against aircraft have occured about twice in the past ten years, you may need to randomly arm rail passengers and large crowds as well. I think sooner or later they will abandon airplanes for easier targets.
I wonder if anybody would still want to terrorize the US if we hadn't invaded one or two Islamic countries too many. But then, there will always be someone with an excuse, no matter how real or imagined. There's no cure for religious fanaticism and little preventive options for acts of madness.
Maybe we should screen the randomly armed people for these possibilities.
Weasledog,
Thank you John for not watching the video from a Senate Judiciary Meeting on abuses of the Patriot Act.
By not watching it will allow you to continue to believe in things without facts or data to support your beliefs. But at least you won't be harmed by learning something that runs counter to your belief system.
What is the point that I am making that you think the video refutes? I think you are wrong on your stance about Capital Punishment in Mexico. Prove me wrong, watch the movie “Hot Shots” and then get back to me. If you are unwilling to do this, I will know you are mistaken. I feel like I am debating a little kid, Jesus (not you, Heathen).
John, you're not actually here to engage in debate. You rarely cite references and you never follow references provided by others. Not so. I always follow and respond to relevant sources I think have a snowballs’ chance in hell of being relevant. However, you cannot even articulate the point you are trying to refute. What stance have I taken that you disagree with? Do you even know what you are talking about? You remind me of a little kid who rushes in to help all the adults clean, when really they are simply trying to do their taxes.
You are deferential to Dave, because it's his blog and you don't want to get a demerit by getting blocked. I was deferential to Dave because he made an intelligent point. I ALWAYS acknowledge intelligent points, concede points and concede arguments when they are deserving. It is part of my debating strategy. I am not in the least concerned about Dave blocking my comments. He would never do that. I have made plenty of statements designed to antagonize Dave and he has never been anything but gentlemanly in his response.
People almost universally have a sense that you are a bad debater. I think the primary reason is that you attempt to rebut for rebuttal’s sake, without having a real point of disagreement until it forms itself in opposition to someone else’s point. You then argue stronger and more desperately the weaker your case becomes. This means you spend most of your time arguing lost or weak points. It makes you look weak, and far weaker than you actually are.
I have the opposite strategy. If I lose a point, I acknowledge it quickly, with praise, or a touché and get passed it. That way, people, myself included, don’t see that anytime I am debating, I am clinging desperately to a lost cause. Your approach removes all credibility.
Oh, and by the way, it would seem that perhaps your point is to attack my position on the Patriot Act, an act which I have openly opposed in the past. I guess you think that this SWAT action was a Patriot Act operation. You did not know my opinion, because you just desperately needed to attack, with no idea what it is you are attacking. Your psychological need to appear right has the opposite effect, and makes you almost always seem wrong, even when you are on the right side of an issue.
Weasledog,
One more thing. You rarely cite references
I cite source references. You look for someone who is saying what you said and post links to it and say "see! See!" That is called junk science.
I can cite references I cite. I argued that Judge Hudson made a bogus ruling against a portion of ObamaCare. I cited his published explanation and followed up with the specific logic flaws contained within it and the laws it contradicted. That is a source citation, not citing MSNBC and saying they agree with me.
I argued that both sides were lying about the S&P and downgrade justification. I sited their published PDF, not CNN. That is a source citation.
I think you should read a book called "Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)" It will teach you the difference between Junk Science and fallacious citations.
I have followed your links before. You almost always try to find that there is a second person on the planet who thinks like you, and you think you proved something when you do.
For this discussion and all future discussion, I accept without proof that others think like you.
I just saved you the work of all your future citations. You are very welcome, sir.
John Myste said... "I cite source references. You look for someone who is saying what you said and post links to it and say "see! See!" That is called junk science."
If a C-Span video of Senate Investigation, based on a DOJ Report is junk science, then the bar is set pretty high for junk science.
But we both know you don't actually follow any link I provide. You've been clear in the past that you don't.
As to your constant crying that I'm mean to you... You and others here were jerks to me from the very beginning, without cause. Rather than being a titty baby, I chose to man up and respond in kind.
You could do the same, or you could choose to quit being a jerk. I'm good with whichever way you'd like to go with it.
@Weasledog,
You are literally in your own world. You continue to make up claims and then challenge them.
If a C-Span video of Senate Investigation, based on a DOJ Report is junk science, then the bar is set pretty high for junk science. A C-Span video is junk science if used to refute a position that has nothing to do with any contention I made. Are you ashamed to admit what brought you into the discussion? If not, tell me. I literally don’t know. What are you trying to refute? You still will not own up to whatever it is that I said that you disagreed with, that brought you into the discussion. By the way, this happened the only other time we got into a long debate. In the other case, you spent a huge amount of time trying to prove that evolution happens, which was a statement I made in my very first comment. I rarely see you debate statements made by others. You make up things and then debate those, and with remarkable aggression. You could have a very lively and contentious blog were you were the only commenter. It is utterly comical.
But we both know you don't actually follow any link I provide. You've been clear in the past that you don't. You made that up also. I don’t follow irrelevant links and I very quickly learned that you tend to post links that prove nothing and do nothing to support your position. If you post them and also say how they are supposed to refute my position, then if I agree that you understand my position, I will follow them. However, you don’t post relevant links, so it is waste of everyone’s time to follow them. Tell me what you are trying to prove. If I disagree and you say the link proves it and how, then I will happily follow it. You seem to be ashamed of rebutting whatever it is that you are trying to rebut, or you would tell me what it is. Actually, I think you don’t know what it is. You are just yapping and you haven’t decided yet.
As to your constant crying that I'm mean to you...
Not once have I ever complained that you or any other blogger was mean to me. You made that up. I expect passionate debaters to be aggressive. I DO NOT consider it mean and I definitely would not complain about it. I like when debaters make easy rhetorical targets out of themselves. I have never been happier than when Free told me I should go fuck my face.
[To Be Continued …]
[Continuation … ]
You and others here were jerks to me from the very beginning, without cause.
What?! I don’t remember ever being a jerk to you, sir. I satirized your faith about evolution AFTER you attacked me for not believing in evolution, a phenomenon that I know to be real. You attacked a position I did not hold and made yourself a target. However, that is not being a jerk. After all, my best guess is also the Theory of evolution and I also KNOW that evolution happens. I simply satirized your taking the science and your best guess into the realm of faith while challenging faith as a valid method for arriving at a conclusion. You have to admit that it was kind of funny. I know it was because others were laughing about it months later. I don’t, however, think I was mean. It is all good banter among friends, as I see it.
Rather than being a titty baby, I chose to man up and respond in kind. I am not angry. I don’t want to respond in kind.
You could do the same, or you could choose to quit being a jerk. Double false dichotomy. I do not want to respond in kind and I am not being a jerk, so not only is there more options than just this choice, but neither of those selections solves a real problem, which by the way, you invented.
And lastly, I will ask you again. Maybe you will answer this time. What is the position I made that you attempted to refute when you entered this discussion? Stop arguing like a madman and inventing things to challenge and tell me what it is that you joined the conservation to rebut. You probably had a good point. You have lots of good points. However, they are usually in rebuttal to a position that no one holds. If you know what brought you into the discussion, I beseech thee, share. If not, then just admit that you have no idea and I will not try to humiliate you over it, I promise.
[The End]
John Myste, YOU Rock!
Well, at least the peanut gallery is entertained.
Dave,
You really do yourself a disfavor when you under estimate the position of those you disagree with and over over estimate your own.
I respect John Myste because he forces all parties in the debate to use reason in their posts, he sets a higher standard than the talking point for day, regardless of whose points they are.
We all would do well to learn from him how to present and defend our positions.
Just The FOX(R),
Yes, indeed, and you would certainly be one to know. And I’m sure you also understand, I use “rantiness”, along with satire, as a literary device. And even still, John seems to agree with me a lot for some reason. Go figure.
Thank you for the advice. That's something to keep in perspective.
Just,
Thanks, and I mean that. I am utterly shocked to get your endorsement. I thought you hated me, based on prior discussions. However, I may have imagined it, and I hope I did. I dream things up from time to ttime, just ask Weasel.
I think you and I have had words somewhere, perhaps Saving Common Sense. However, as I still like Weasledog and Free, I also still liked you.
Again, just shocked, but pleased for the endorsement.
Unfortunately, Dave and I are both Liberals, though I am often accused of being a conservative and Dave accuses himself of not being a liberal. It is all BS. We are both card carrying liberals, so if you don't hate me now, you are bound to sooner or later. You may as well get her over with!
Just,
I just remembered! It was Saving Common Sense!
Before playing devil's advocate briefly, I want to make clear that I share your concern, Dave, about the fact and potential for erosion of our rights and freedoms due to overreaction that has been hardened into policies, laws and procedures in the wake of 9-11. This is a serious problem that should be brought up and questioned repeatedly, and it's good people such as yourself do it. The back pressure is important.
That said, I won't fault what happened to the three dark-skinned people in Detroit this Sept. 11th. The authorities were definitely out to err on the side of caution, and I don't blame them. They very well might've had not only whatever report they got from that plane, but intelligence gleaned from chatter indicating some kind of trouble might be headed their way.
As it turned out, all the police did was question the three and let them go. That was no doubt cause for anxiety and consternation, but no lasting harm was done to them.
The humorous saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean no one's out to get you." Citizens all over the country should be a little more aware of what's going on around them, and a bit more willing to speak up or act if something strikes them as out of line.
That's what two street vendors in Times Square, NYC, did, and it's a good thing they did. See "NY street vendors praised for spotting car bomb." Turns out a Pakistan national living and working in the N.Y. area — someone no one thought would do such a thing — decided to do his bit for jihad. See "Times Square Car Bomb Could Have Created Big Fireball."
Then, there was that Army psychiatrist major of Mideast background, who went off his nut and killed a bunch of innocent people in a hostpital. Turns out he was a fan of that Yemeni imam who specializes in encouraging such acts of violence.
(Continues)
Americans have good reason to take extra precautions. We have a big, very open country and big, diverse society. We have a lot of personal rights and freedoms, and exercise them all over the place. All this goes together to make our country a challenge to defend against terrorist attacks. Heightened altertness and willingness of individuals to report things that don't seem right are important. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is.
It's easy to say in hindsight the Detroit authorities went overboard. But maybe the fact they took whatever they were told seriously and got right on it contributes to a kind of buzz that causes terrorist wannabes to cancel some plans because the heat's still on and the chance of getting caught is too great. I don't know that, but suspect there's something to it.
Do push back against things like the Patriot Act. Do criticize people who are all too ready to lock up people of color, of certain ethnic backgrounds, not for anything they've said or done, but for who and what they are.
But don't dismiss out of hand the need for vigilance and the need sometimes to speak up. Thinking back to a whole series of incidents involving the 9-11 attackers' activities before they struck, a lot of lives might've been spared if some ordinary citizens had been alert, more suspicious, more about connecting dots and calling authorities.
Mr. Anderson,
Your commentary was almost perfect. Very well-spoken. If you had not almost butured the Yossarian quote, one of my favorite, it would have been perfect.
Just because your paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not after you.
Yossarian said that when he complained that "they" were trying to kill him.
"They're trying to kill everyone. We are at war," Clevinger told him.
"And what difference does that make?" Yossarian asked.
Clevinger tells him that he is paranoid.
SW,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. As we know Americans' fears have been exploited, and our rights are in jeopardy with next to zero media interest. I'm not suggesting we ignore suspicious behavior, just that we should have some frame of reference for the public to determine what suspicious means. The Detroit cops were only following through with their duty to respond to a call. I'm not accusing them of wrongdoing.
But I'm asking what precipitated the operation. Why shouldn't we have more information to better understand what went wrong and what went right?
Maybe we can be less fearful and yet still be alert to possible threats with some sensible guidelines. In a matter so serious, why not educate the public?
Free0352, it sounds like you're as much a crazed lunatic as you say they are.
"Jefferson's Guardian"
Your September 24, 2011 8:30 AM comment ain't no surprise.
Someone who is against the Death Penalty would also most likely be against killing Muslim extremists whose life mission is to destroy western civilization and its inhabitants by any means possible. But what puzzles me the most is that you probably don't have a problem with partial birth abortions.
Where is the ACLU and NOW (National Organization for Women) to denouce how muslims are deprived of their civil liberties?
here's a brief refresher on civil liberties from wikipedia:
"Civil liberties are rights and freedoms that provide an individual specific rights such as the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery and forced labour, the right to liberty and security, right to a fair trial, the right to defend one's self, the right to privacy, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, and the right to marry and have a family. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, it is important to note the distinctions between positive rights and negative rights."
What do we hear from the ACLU and NOW about how muslims in the Middle East are being deprived of their civil liberties? We hear only crickets.
I could go off on a long list of civil liberty violations in the Middle East, but hanging a civilian from a goal post is not my interpretation of a right to a speedy trial. I am sure even Alan Dershowitz would agree with a red state country hick like me on that one.
JM,
Yossarian, great quote! How about Major Major Major, who Yossarian couldn't see cause he wasn't in and when he was in he couldn't see him?
Note the difference between how JM and Jefferson Guard disagrees with a poster.
JM points our using logic why he feels the poster is wrong, while JG just calls the poster ugly names.
Enough of the love fest.
I understand this thread is about a loss of freedoms in response to the events of 9-11. I realize to liberals this loss is a great affront to their vision of America. In that I agree, it is a stunning loss of personal freedom in response to a stunning unmerited attack on us. What I don't get is how liberals turn a blind eye to the growth of government which with its burden of regulations wears down our freedom?
Final note.
I recall during the 1960's how much Joan Baez and Jane Fonda were against all wars. But here is the difference, while both protested the Vietnam war, only Baez protested when North Vietnam attacked Cambodia. Jane never opened her mouth!
I respect Baez (while I disagree with her), because she is following the logical course that being anti war must follow. Fonda, well never mind.
That is why I am stunned about this thread, Dave is upset (rightfully so) about the reduction of our freedoms caused by the reaction to 9-11, but is blind to the loss of our freedoms caused by the govt. programs he supports.
I just want to jump on board and say, S.W. Anderson, very well said.
RedStateFred, you concluded your diatribe with...
"I could go off on a long list of civil liberty violations in the Middle East.."
Thank you for sparing us.
Jefferson's Guardian,
Keep your head in the sand about Muslim extremists and your ACLU membership.
RedStateFred, I don't concern myself with Muslim extremists. I am, however, uneasy with conservative and Republican extremists -- such as yourself.
By the way, I don't belong to the ACLU, and never have. But, because of your comments, I'm definitely joining and contributing today.
RedState,
Someone who is against the Death Penalty would also most likely be against killing Muslim extremists whose life mission is to destroy western civilization and its inhabitants by any means possible. But what puzzles me the most is that you probably don't have a problem with partial birth abortions.
Gives new meaning to the fallacy of complex question. You did it without a question! And you made it a three-parter! I hope I remember to accuse someone of committing the RedState Fallacy in the future.
here's a brief refresher on civil liberties from wikipedia:
Yes, let’s make sure we form our philosophy around Wikipedia entries. In fact, I think I will add that to Wikipedia to make sure everyone knows they should do it.
I am not trying to debate your overall position. I just found it amusing how you expressed it.
Free,
While you have far more experience with Muslim fanaticism; I am more familiar with sociopaths, madness, and pure evil than you might imagine. I do not fit the "naive, anti-Second Amendment liberal" stereotype the Right loves to invoke.
And you are right about Islamic radicals, although our own Timmy McVeigh proved anti-government Christian fanatics can have the same lethal effect as well.
I have no problem at all with killing terrorists. It is self defense. Problems arise when we "pre-emptively" kill innocents and feed their cause. Other problems arise when we feed into our own fears to the point we treat each other as terror suspects.
Madness, and even terror, can be found at both ends of the equation. Nobody can honestly claim the US has never terrorized innocent people.
Fred,
I'm happy that you have an interest in keeping our civil liberties.
Unfortunately you have no idea how far off the mark you are with your paragraph:
Someone who is against the Death Penalty would also most likely be against killing Muslim extremists whose life mission is to destroy western civilization and its inhabitants by any means possible. But what puzzles me the most is that you probably don't have a problem with partial birth abortions.
You are also confused about the ACLU. It is the American Civil Liberties Union, not the Middle East Civil Liberties Union. And if you care to learn about it, you would know the ACLU most certainly defends Muslims' civil liberties. They defend yours and mine too. Please look beyond the radical Right and Bible thumping fundamentalist opposition to the ACLU. They sometimes defend people all of us don't like, because they defend the Bill of Rights first and foremost.
If you are concerned with the rights of Middle Eastern Muslims, look into Amnesty International. No crickets there.
Just the FOX(R),
I may regret this, but here goes... Where have you, or anyone else, shown us how Social Security and Medicare have resulted in the loss of our Constitutional freedoms?
Please inform us how these programs are as devastating to our civil liberties as the surveillance state, torture, wars, incarceration without charges, and other overzealous reactions by government.
Could you educate us blind folks and show us the light? We are open to your wisdom, so please treat us poor benighted souls kindly.
Free0352, it sounds like you're as much a crazed lunatic as you say they are.
Really why, because I'm all for exterminating the cock roaches?
"And you are right about Islamic radicals, although our own Timmy McVeigh proved anti-government Christian fanatics can have the same lethal effect as well. "
Dave, it's inappropriate to link Islamic radicals and McVeigh. McVeigh did not kill in the name of his religion.
Free0352, tell me, do you force yourself to wear a hockey goalie mask so you don't eat 'em?
Is McVeigh too American, or more justified, to be compared to other terrorists?
Dave, let me explain something to you: not one, not even one, of the Islamic terrorists are named Timothy. They all have Middle Eastern sounding names.
You simply cannot compare them. Look at this:
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
Najibullah Zazi
Aafia Siddiqui
Tim
Does something seem out of place? C'mon, a little fairness, please.
OK John, I admit I threw in the following to stir the pot:
"But what puzzles me the most is that you probably don't have a problem with partial birth abortions."
"Someone who is against the Death Penalty would also most likely be against killing Muslim extremists whose life mission is to destroy western civilization and its inhabitants by any means possible. But what puzzles me the most is that you probably don't have a problem with partial birth abortions."
The above is just a regurgitation of the opposite views held by conservatives and liberals:
1) Most conservatives believe punishment for crimes includes the death penalty depending on the severity of the crime. Most liberals believe the dealth penalty is too severe no matter what the crime.
2) Most conservatives are against abortion and believe in protecting the rights of the unborn who they consider innocent. Most liberals have no problem with abortions. I am not trying to start a discussion on abortion and when life begins.
John Myste, do you agree or disagree with 1) and 2)?
"Yes, let’s make sure we form our philosophy around Wikipedia entries."
Wikipedia had a general enough definition of civil liberties that I can accept. I think it applies to ALL people in the world. What is the definition of civil liberties in the world according to John Myste?
Jefferson,
Just let me know when you leave Amerika for good.
Dave,
Here's how I see it.
When a govt program is offered and accepted by a person, state or business, the recipient is required to behave in a manner that the lending gov requires.
That is a reduction of freedom. Just as much as having one's freedom to travel restricted due to govt requirements, that are required in order to keep us safe, we lose the freedom to travel that before govt regulations we once had.
This is not an argument of relativism as you implied with this statement: "how these programs are as devastating to our civil liberties as the surveillance state, torture, wars, incarceration without charges, and other overzealous reactions by government."
It simply boils down to this, if there was every an example supporting the phrase "there is no such thing as a free lunch" it is accepting a govt program.
Example: I pay along with my employer into my S.S. account until I retire. My income is taxed before S.S. is taken out. When I start to collect my govt retirement plan (S.S.) that money is taxed again, if I find I cannot live as I wish on the amount I receive. So if I return to work to offset the short fall of income from S.S. vs my desired life style, the income from S.S is taxed again.
Now how does effect my freedom? It limits my choices that's how. And this limitation was in force way before 9-11. The rules set up in S.S. limit's the way I choose to live by limited the amount of income I can have before exposed to income taxes. That is a reduction of freedom. Dave, you should be upset that the govt is restricting your freedom on how much you can make once you start to get back the money you and your employer paid into S.S. that was already taxed. But you do not. Yet it is still as much a reduction on your choice of how to live and travel as other actions by a overzealous govt.you have correctly been opposed to.
Just The FOX(R),
Thank you for your thoughtful explanation. I think the simplified bottom line is this. Your view of taxation is that it is freedom killing tyranny. My view is taxes are the price we pay for a civil society and the public good.
Some will argue over-reaching government and police power is for our safety and protection. Others see reductions of civil liberties.
Maybe both views hold some truth.
John Myste, Can we agree on a set of fallacies to apply to "arguments" on blogger.com?
Let me know if the following is OK in the world according to John Myste.
1. Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force)
2. Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive)
3. Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial)
4. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)
5. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity)
6. Argumentum ad Populum
7. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority)
8. Accident
9. Converse Accident (hasty generalization)
10. False Cause
11. Petitio Principii (begging the question)
12. Complex Question
13. Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion)
John should we structure our arguments in the future using the following as an example?:
1) John Myste said RedStateRed made a statement that was an example of a fallacy of a Complex Question.
2) RedStateFred clarified his statement and asked John Myste some questions.
3) RedStateFred hasn't heard from John Myste.
4) RedStateFred has concluded that John Myste committed the fallacy of Converse Accident (hasty generalization).
RedStateFred, you addressed to me...
"Jefferson, Just let me know when you leave Amerika for good."
I don't have to leave America. The America I remember from my youth, and about which I was taught in school, left me, and you, a long time ago.
Why haven't you noticed?
@Redstate,
Firstly, my accusation was one inspired by humor, not aggression. When discussing life and death, throwing something like Abortion in there, when we cannot even agree about what kind of life that is, amused me and reminded me of the fallacy of complex question, that’s all.
I assume by your list, you don’t mean to list the ones we will allow, but instead intend to list the ones we will explicitly reject. However, I am not sure that’s what you mean. I am very opinionated about the topic, and the topic of debating strategy in general. Avoiding the use of fallacy, and calling those who use them out on it, is but a subset of the entire topic. I am arrogant about the entire topic, which includes strategy, sales, deliberation, forms (technique, manner, method).
I do not believe that fallacy has no place in debate. Debates are created to persuade and people are convinced of things with a combination of faith, emotion and logic. Therefore, all three of these have a place in a well-argued debate.
There are some fallacies that are the common mistakes people make in thinking. Those should be avoided or challenged when they happen, though not necessarily by name. I have noticed that Heathen routinely challenges them, and virtually never by name. Instead, he describes the fallacy and points out that it is illogical.
[To Be Continued …]
[@RedState Part II]
As for the Latin designations, they should not be used in most cases, as they often do not communicate. If you say “Appeal to Emotion,” “Appeal to Authority,” “Appeal to Vehemence,” most everyone will know what you are mean. If you start speaking Latin, most people will not. English is difficult enough. No need to complicate things further. The exceptions are non-sequitur, ad hominem, ad absurdum, etc. Those are OK in my opinion because I think most everyone knows them by their Latin name.
Let me first address your list, which is not really the right target in my opinion, as it is does not represent the top 95% of fallacies that form most arguments:
1. Appeal to force. I don’t this this is one you see commonly on blogger and is rare enough that you need not worry your pretty little head about it.
2. Ad Hominem – I think if this is committed, it should be acknowledge, perhaps with as little as ad Hominem and then we should move on.
3. Appeal to Ignorance (Appeal from Ignorance). I think we should just point out the logical flaw as our challenge. It is easy to do.
4. Appeal to Pity and Appeal to Emotion. Again, we should just call an emotion an emotion and move on.
5. Appeal to the popular belief, we should challenge it as irrelevant and say why. In most cases naming the fallacy is not as powerful as challenging the logic.
6. Appeal to Authority. Just mention it and move on.
7. Converse Accident. I tried naming this against someone and the other guy challenged my definition. He would challenge yours also, which I too consider shallow. I now have this opinion: the accident family of fallacies, especially gambler’s and converse fallacies, should be described, not named. For example: “The fact that you smoked for 50 years and never got cancer in no way proves that smoking is not dangerous. I am not arguing that smoking causes cancer. I am arguing that smoking sometimes causes cancer.” Or “I know that it is not likely that someone would be falsely accused of two separate crimes, but the first false accusation is history and it would seem that Troy Davis may not have committed this crime. The fact that he was falsely accused of something in the past has nothing to do with this.
8. False Cause – I actually don’t mind mentioning the cause fallacies by name, because it is easier that trying to explain them to me. It is the exception of my general rule. I have accused lots of people of committing post hoc fallacies. They did.
9. I generally leave “begging the question” out of it, because people miss the point and the debate becomes about what begging the question means. I often quickly dismiss or ignore slippery slope for the same reason. People say: “It’s a slippery slope,” as support for their argument, not realizing that they are opening embracing a named fallacy by name to try to be persuasive.
10. Complex Question. I think it should be called out, by name, every time it is committed. That is the quickest way to get your point across.
11. Irrelevant Conclusion (this is not in my toolbox). Since I generally pulverize those who debate me, I must assume I don’t need it.
[To Be Continued …]
[@RedState Part III]
John should we structure our arguments in the future using the following as an example?:
1) John Myste said RedStateRed made a statement that was an example of a fallacy of a Complex Question.
2) RedStateFred clarified his statement and asked John Myste some questions.
3) RedStateFred hasn't heard from John Myste.
4) RedStateFred has concluded that John Myste committed the fallacy of Converse Accident (hasty generalization).
We could structure it that way if you like. The fact that John Myste left for several hours, then returned and had a huge number of comments to respond to, may have had something to do with it. My response to you was the longest, thus I did it last. Those who know me know I respond. I either openly concede a point or a debate or I answer it. I do not leave it dangling. I believe all those here will vouch for that, as I think you are the only one posting in this thread that is not aware of it. Also, surely you realize the fallacy in your ironic conclusion. The fact that John had not returned could in no way prove or disprove a commitment of fallacy. As you know already, it was a huge false correlation made with no data to support a causal relationship. Even if you were right, you could not have known with the data you had available to you.
Now, for the Myste List. I believe the small list I am about to provide, encompasses the vast majority of fallacious arguments actually made. I will report them in the order of my guess of the frequency with which they occur, the most frequent on top:
1. Straw man fallacy
2. Composition fallacy (I include Division fallacies in this. All the same family).
3. False Dichotomy
4. Post Hoc Fallacy, False Correlation and non sequitur (I kind of thing these should be grouped together as variations of the same mistake).
5. Appeals Family (emotion, authority and ignorance. I think these are all variations of the same mistake).
6. No True Scottsman (there is probably an official name for this. “If he really favored a progressive tax, he would support raising top marginal rates above 40%).
7. Affirming the Consequent (I include denying the antecedent in this. While less common, it is the inverse of consequent affirmation).
I don’t think ad hominem belongs in the list. It should be acknowledged, but it doesn’t work in these modern enlightened times. There are subtle instances, but they are less common. I don’t consider an ad hominem argument an illogical argument because I don’t consider it a sincere effort to persuade. It is usually done for the purpose of relieving pressure, not persuasion. If you are the subject of an ad hominem attack, it usually means your opponent is frustrated. It is a good sign, not a debate point, though. I consider it a non-argument. It should be acknowledged as such.
This is the Myste list. I think it is very good. I think if you can afford those seven fallacy groups, you will mostly argue fallacy-free. If you can recognize them instantly when they are made, you will be a much more circumspect thinker and a more successful debater.
I am glad you showed some interest in my debating philosophy. I also have much to say about strategic approaches, including coaxing one’s extreme opinion out of them (as most people’s real opinion is extreme and is a big huge target), provoking one to “show his hand,” as creating target points and preventing your opponent from doing the same, offering persuasiveness in the absence of logic, psychological profiling and responses to it, asa methods of debating.
I sound like I am asserting that I am a good debater. I am not making that claim. I do, however, like the game of debate very much and I am just as pleased as pie to find another hobbyist to play with.
[The End]
@RedState,
You are so wordy that I missed one of your responses, but while reviewing the debates of others, I stumbled into it, so here is my answer:
"But what puzzles me the most is that you probably don't have a problem with partial birth abortions."
Yes, Red, that puzzles you and completely baffles me. I don’t see how anyone could have no problem with partial birth abortions. Well, I didn’t anyway, until you taught me that I don’t.
Also, the question of abortion and the question of Capital Punishment are not related. To mix them is fallacious.
Most liberals believe the death penalty is too severe no matter what the crime. I hear this lie from conservatives frequently, and yet I have trouble finding these liberals. It is not true that most liberals are against Capital Punishment and if it were true, Capital Punishment would probably be federally outlawed, as the liberals one the social debate for close to a century.
Most liberals have no problem with abortions. This is an exaggeration for sure. Lots of liberals have problems with it and many of them reject it outright. I do agree that the embracing of abortion tends to be on the liberal side, which is why it is legal. Historically, liberals win overall in social matters (thank God). However, the opposition to opposition to abortion exists on both sides.
John Myste, do you agree or disagree with 1) and 2)?
I totally disagree with number one. It is nonsense. I do, however admit that one describes me. I am against Capital Punishment for any reason. I have voiced this on liberal sites everywhere and with only one exception, they all denounced me for it. I also voiced this to my liberal wife and she also denounced me.
I do not agree with number 2 either. However, I don’t strongly disagree with it either, so I am not prepared to passionately dispute it.
Wikipedia had a general enough definition of civil liberties that I can accept. I objected to be funny, not to prove anything.
What is the definition of civil liberties in the world according to John Myste?
That is a very good question. Maybe if I get time later, I will try to figure that out.
Dave,
John,
You're right. Timmy was completely different. Somehow I don’t think the victims' families would take comfort from knowing their loved ones weren't killed by a Muslim.
Well, I also think Timothy dressed differently, if maybe that will help the families of victims.
Fred and John,
Thank you for elevating the level of our thread by your somewhat clarifying discussion of fallacies.
I have a feeling these fallacies will be subjected to more inspection and elaboration as we proceed.
I reserve reductio ad absurdum (Disproof of a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.) for my own purposes of satirical ranting.
I am no defender of the religious, but the left likes to create equivalencies by citing "Christian terrorists." McVeigh is the most common example, but he was no Christian terrorist.
I can't agree more.
The motives of McVey were racial hatred, not religion. The motives of Islamic Terrorists are religion. I consider motives, but only in that it helps me complete a mission. I don't care why terrorists like Tim McVey or Osama Bin Laden do what they do beyond the intelligence it bears to help me kill or capture them. My job is to find people like this and shoot them. It's what I do, it's what the tax payers pay me for.
One thing Bin Laden or McVey had in common was the willingness to kill on a huge scale. Their targets are those I'm paid to protect. It's simple math, the best way for me to protect those who pay me to do so is to kill those that would kill my countrymen before the enemy can harm them.
You cannot reason with Islamic Terrorists any more than you could reason with McVey. It's a zero sum game with that type of personality.
I encourage any of you to travel to the Mideast and simply meet with a radical... they aren't hard to find. If you survive the experience, you'll see what I'm talking about very clearly.
These are people who HATE western civilization, and unless you are willing to give that civilization up... which of course none of us really is... we will be at war with this enemy until we can kill them all.
Free,
Thanks for offering differences and similarities among terrorists. We all know these similarities and differences exist, so why quibble?
You and HR are vehemently arguing that you each know for certain the unknowable motives of McVeigh. Your “math” is also quite dubious. You begin with an unsourced estimate and add additional unsourced estimated percentages and proceed with the certainty of an authoritarian mathematician.
Did you know McVeigh was not the only person arrested for the crime? It was not just “one guy” as you claim. There’s another error in your “math”.
So, just to be a sporting let’s keep your math. Let’s take your one guy and compare his death total to your five million brown terrorists.
Up until September 2001, it seems that one guy killed more Americans than all five million Muslims. I would say that is not an insignificant threat level, would you?
Now let’s imagine how many of those five million really are plausible threats to Americans. How many are here? Not that many. I can reasonably say most of the five million will never see our shores, so your 1:5,000,000,000 ratio is not an accurate reflection of the threat ratio.
Now we have close to three thousand killed by Muslim terrorists in the US. That is unacceptable and I wish Bush had paid more attention to his August 2001 PDB warning.
Facts are facts and numbers are numbers. Five million Muslin terrorists have killed roughly three thousand people here. McVeigh, a Christian, killed 168 people.
168 per one guy is a higher lethality rate than three thousand per five million guys, isn’t it? Yes, it is.
But none of this is the point, now is it? Enjoyable as it was, I’m now guilty of running off on a tangent like you two.
This was my original statement that you are obsessed with arguing over:
"And you are right about Islamic radicals, although our own Timmy McVeigh proved anti-government Christian fanatics can have the same lethal effect as well."
What part of this is not true? It is completely true. Yet you can’t seem to handle that truth.
If your only point is to deny he was a Christian terrorist, then you are wrong. He confessed to being both a Christian and a terrorist. Case closed. Does it fry your circuits that someone does not have to be Muslim to be a terrorist?
Or are you trying to distract from the even more relevant fact that Timmy was a conservative anti-government type Christian? Hmm. No wonder you don’t like me mentioning him and comparing him to other terrorists.
@Dave,
Fred and John,
Thank you for elevating the level of our thread by your somewhat clarifying discussion of fallacies.
I have a feeling these fallacies will be subjected to more inspection and elaboration as we proceed.
I reserve reductio ad absurdum (Disproof of a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.) for my own purposes of satirical ranting.
Just to clarify, I am pretty sure Fred left his list of fallacies in rebuttal to my joke about a fallacy of complex question even with no question, per se, up for discussion. I think it annoyed him. He left a “coaxing” reminder at Mysterious Things to please respond, something I would have done anyway, as I always respond to challenges. I don’t leave them dangling, but he does not know me, so he does not know this.
I am pretty sure he googled his list, as it was random and not always the most common ones. I, however, have thought a great deal about this, and I had my stock list on hand, in RAM, so to speak. The seven fallacy families I mentioned actually cover the vast majority of fallacies committed (of those that matter). I estimate at least 95%. I think they should be taught in every grade, one through 12 as a part of the core curriculum. If you are mindful of these seven bullet points, you will be pretty logical. It doesn’t mean you will win the debate, but you will be logical. I lose debates more frequently than I would like, but it is usually not due to fallacy. I do sometimes lose points within a debate due to fallacy, though. Of course, I commit fallacies daily. It is impossible not to. However, it is very good to recognize when you have done it or when others have.
No offense to RedState, but his list was random and not as useful as mine, in my opinion. As for the appeals (emotion, vehemence, Authority), slippery slope, ad absurdum, and even Straw man, I do not think we should avoid them. They keep the debate interesting and keep the opposition on its toes. They can also be very persuasive at times, and they pack a greater punch than a logical point. They can devastate your opponent if used effectively.
I am passionate about this topic, but I would NEVER have posted a long comment on it here, if not for RedState requesting that I do in the form of what I considered a challenge. Since I am pre-armed with this and other areas of rhetorical strategy, I was interested in answering his challenge. Also, if he was sincere, instead of trying to win a rhetorical point as I believe, then his list was in need of attention as it did not cover most of the real-world scenarios and seemed to be in no particular order.
So in summary, I don’t think we actually elevated the thread discussion. Instead we lowered it by trollishly bickering about a topic that had nothing to do with the original post or any other discussion in progress.
If I tried something like this at Oh!pinion, I would be verbally banned and Mr. Anderson would probably get a court order demanding I stay at least 500 feet away from his blog.
"You and HR are vehemently arguing that you each know for certain the unknowable motives of McVeigh."
Actually Dave, you're confused. You're the one who assigned motives to McVeigh when you described him as a Christian terrorist.
Perhaps you're unaware that McVeigh lived for a few years in incarceration, and several books and investigative reports have been written about the Oklahoma City bombing. None of those sources point to McVeigh's religion as motivation.
Perhaps you can enlighten us on why you have asserted that he's a Christian terrorist. I believe the burden of proof rests with the person making the assertion, and that would be you.
As I said before, claiming he was a Christan who was also a terrorist makes him a Christian terrorist about as much as having a girl who is your friend makes her your girlfriend. Try again.
John Myste, thank you for mixing me up with someone else.
I've long been a proponent of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
I'm not sure who you're mixing me up with, but for my religious beliefs, I'm a spiritualist bordering on atheism.
And John, the link you didn't follow, doesn't pertain to some past argument, it is topical in view of this post by Dave Dubya.
free0352 said... "Really why, because I'm all for exterminating the cock roaches?"
Wow! Godwin's Law invoked! Good job Free!
Are you a Neo-Nazi?
Several things, from my point of view.
Thanks to John M., Red State Fred, HR, Dave, and Free, this blog may be the only one still running were the debate is now driven by logic, supportable facts, expression of none bomb throwing feelings and humane treatment of those who have a different opinion. I don't know how others may see this, but I am going to do all I can to keep the level of debate at the high standards set by the posters listed above.
@ Dave, "Some will argue over-reaching government and police power is for our safety and protection. Others see reductions of civil liberties."
Spot on!! In the two examples you asked me to defend my position, that is the case.
But govt regulations do not reduce our civil liberties/freedom of choice just via the tool of taxation. Sometimes the regulations are well meaning, but due to their use of command economics vs consumer economics, fail.
Two supporting examples:
1. NYC bans salt levels in food sold at restaurants due to health concerns.
2. Federal Govt restricts my choice of the type of light bulb. This results in GE closing light bulb plant, and workers lose their jobs as the govt approved light bulb is now made in China. Further new bulb isn't all its cracked up to be and has issues that from my view point out weight the supposed energy savings.
Looking into these two examples I doubt #1 was enacted by it's supporters due to a hoped for economic or political gain. It's just a well meaning body of govt who feels the people who elected them aren't as smart as they are and need their help to live long prosper. Kind of like the city n CA who took up he debate to ban circumcision with in it's city limits. Maybe means well but whose business is, not theirs that's for sure!
It is so temping to discuss # 2 in a manner that is not to the high standards this blog is striving for, I think I'll just leave it were I posted it.
Anyway Dave, these are two other examples of how I see govt regulations reducing our freedom.
Just The FOX(R),
Well said. You've come a long way. Isn't it better to be mature adults than simply taking troll-like pot shots and dumping copy and paste spam?
I hope you consider withdrawing your accustion that I resort to "Hugo Chavez censorship", or whatever it was.
John,
Your information was useful and relevant for discussion, not mere trolling.
I already found a need to refer to it.
Dave, I made the reason for my comment very clear: the left likes to create equivalencies between Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism even though the latter essentially doesn't exist. The common example is McVeigh.
I called out your statement to see if that's what you were doing with your comment about Christian radicals. You proceeded to call McVeigh a Christian terrorist multiple times (even if I was the first to introduce the term).
We can resolve this right now. Do you think Christian terrorists pose a similar risk as Islamic terrorists? Do you think McVeigh committed his act of terrorism in the name of God?
HR,
Do you think Christian terrorists pose a similar risk as Islamic terrorists? Do you think McVeigh committed his act of terrorism in the name of God?
McVeigh's threat was lethal. So is Islamist terror. That is the similarity. The difference is degree of lethality. I never suggested an equivalency apart from lethal effect.
I also did not suggest Timmy acted in the name of God. I did suggest he may have rationalized God's tolerance of his act.
Now I ask you, do you think it is responsible and patriotic for Republicans to bandy about "second amendment remedies" and Obama the Marxist wanting to "take our guns"?
"hope you consider withdrawing your accustion that I resort to "Hugo Chavez censorship"
Withdrawn.
Now I ask you, do you think it is responsible and patriotic for Republicans to bandy about "second amendment remedies" and Obama the Marxist wanting to "take our guns"?
Number of Republican or Libertarian terrorist attacks in America: Zero.
Your point on that is moot.
As for Obama, he has a LONG history of a strong support of outright bans and the now moderated stance of "Common sense control."
Bottom line, his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not compatible with gun ownership beyond a muzzle loader or a single barrel shotgun. Gun control on par with Europe. It seems like on every other policy of his, that's where Obama gets his ideas.
Free,
So we take it you approve of that kind of hate talk. No one is shocked.
The real bottom line is Republicans employ that inflammatory rhetoric.
The other real bottom line is Obama has done nothing to take away guns.
Obama also gets his ideas from Wall Street insiders. Your alleged bottom line is both false and moot.
But thanks for butting in...
@Weasledog,
John Myste, thank you for mixing me up with someone else.
I cannot remember who it was that said: “ The Iliad was written by Homer, or if not by Homer, then by someone with the same name. My apologies to you, Weasledog. It would seem that I and a different Weasledog bickered over evolution at Dave Dubya’s Freedom Rants, HERE, his post on April 2nd, titled “Sound Science.”
So it would seem that I did not ascribe words to you that someone else said, you did quote conservatives in that discussion and ascribe them to me. Ironic, huh?
You quoted me as saying: Never mind that these same scientists have by their own emails and occasional candid statements proclaimed that their scientific methods are sometimes quite questionable, their data is cherry picked or even outright fabricated as per the East Anglia emails etc." I would NEVER say anything like that. T. Paine did. I would not have brought that up again. I only mentioned it because you wrongly accused me of mixing your words with someone else’s in a discussion where you happened to do that exact thing. It is ironic, thus amusing, that’s all.
I've long been a proponent of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Funny thing is, I started my discussion by saying that I know evolution happens. I questioned the philosophical conclusions drawn based the fact of evolution, and even then, I did not deny them, but only stated that the philosophical side was theory. At that point, you pounced and desperately tried to prove that evolution happens, which was not something I would ever debate.
I'm not sure who you're mixing me up with,
That would be you. Follow the Sound Science link and your memory will be refreshed.
but for my religious beliefs, I'm a spiritualist bordering on atheism. I never thought you were anything else. I also am an atheist. However, you have faith in the philosophy of evolution, whereas I believe the science, but consider the philosophical side to be one explanation among many.
And John, the link you didn't follow, doesn't pertain to some past argument, it is topical in view of this post by Dave Dubya.
I granted you that without evidence, remember? Re-read my comment. I asked what it was that made you challenge me in the first place. What is your position? What were you trying to rebut? You still are unwilling to tell me. You made up a debate and then debated yourself and you expect me to defend one side of it, but you have yet to tell me what it is we are debating. I have you know my position, the one you are refuting, before I can defend it. Like you, I honestly don’t know what you are talking about. Ahahahaha. I am just playing with you, Weasle, my friend. I seriously don’t know what the debate is about, though. You started rebutting, offering links and such, but never told me what you disagreed with. Since I stated no position, I could not imagine you found something to rebut.
"Now I ask you, do you think it is responsible and patriotic for Republicans to bandy about 'second amendment remedies' and Obama the Marxist wanting to 'take our guns'?"
Dave, that's pretty random... speaking of non sequitur. If I thought someone like Michele Bachmann was literally calling for us to take up arms against the government as a 2nd amendment remedy, I would actively denounce it (as opposed to passively ignoring it).
I don't have any problem with hyperbolic political rhetoric, particularly at campaign events designed to amp up supporters. I'm firmly on the side of free speech, which is something you also support, correct?
Lastly, if you consider this kind of hyperbole to be hateful, is it safe for me to assume that you similarly condemn hateful speech from Democrats? Or does only Republican free speech get you so angry?
Oh, and I'm not aware of any specific activities by Obama to take away guns. They might be there, but I'm ignorant of them. I think he's guilty of giving away free guns to known killers, but that's a whole other story.
HR,
Not so random. McVeigh's crime is very much related to anti-government violence-tinged rhetoric.
So I take it you allow that rhetoric as "responsible". Sharon Angle would be proud.
Inflammatory hate speech should be denounced for what it is. I will do so, no matter who speaks it. You don't seem to mind so much. That would be a difference between us.
Was it Angle? I thought it was Bachmann. Oh well.
That's right, I don't denounce hate speech because I don't even know what it is. To identify "hate" speech, I'd have to know someone's motive for speaking, and I don't claim to know motives.
Give me a minute -- I want to scroll back through your past posts to find incidents of you denouncing Democrat "hate" speech. Maybe Hoffa's opening remarks to introduce Obama? That was only a few weeks ago, so it shouldn't be hard for me to find.
If you truly believe that McVeigh acted because of political speech, I recommend you turn off the television and video games in your household. Even though there is no proven causal (or even corollary) relationship between violent rhetoric or visuals and actual violence, you seem to believe it exists, so by all means, protect your children.
You see, I prefer to blame actual perpetrators of crime. McVeigh did it. Loughner did it. Any attempt to tie their actions to the speech of politicians is a masturbatory exercise. Enjoy!
So we take it you approve of that kind of hate talk. No one is shocked.
What talk? Oh, you must mean this? Or this?
In the end, it's not words I worry about... people have a right to say what they want... it's actions I care about.
No matter what any American has said, no main stream person in our country can really compare to this. Or this.
Or Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
And most important of all, this.
That's right, I don't denounce hate speech because I don't even know what it is.
I agree 100%. The term "Hate Speech" is just some label. It doesn't mean anything. I'm talking about actions that constitute acts of war, and the liberals are choosing instead to focus on what 5 readnecks in some trailer are talking about.
I can't figure out why that is.
Lastly,
If Wall Street Insiders are the ones in control of Obama (and indeed some of them are... *cough* Goldman Sachs, unions *caough*) then it would make sense he would want to support those invested in fire arms companies.
Instead, he supports gun control very common in Europe, Japan, and Australia. Gee, I wonder where he got his ideas on gun control? Could it be evil corporations (who sell guns BTW) or could it be his socialist palls across the pond?
Hmmmmmmmmmm....
Free,
Although I appreciate your efforts, please forgive me for not checking all your links. You are right again that mainstream Americans do not compare with the hate over in war torn lands and dictatorships.
I understand you and HR cannot see the difference between "second amendment remedies" and Hoffa calling on the vote to take the class warriors out. Such a difference is nearly invisible to some.
Nuance was never a Right winger strength. If nuance is the word for the clear contrast between votes and weapons to amend a political situation. Free speech is free speech. I would not punish or censor them for saying what they say, merely denounce it for the irresponsible and vile intent conveyed.
On the other hand, I am happy you agree with me that Obama has corporatist Wall Street advisors who keep him in line.
I'm also pleased you recognize Bush's lie that they "hate us for our freedom".
But I am a bit surprised you didn't credit, or recognize, me for the link to Cato or my support for the Second Amendment.
And here you thought we have no common ground.
Just the Facts! wrote: "What I don't get is how liberals turn a blind eye to the growth of government which with its burden of regulations wears down our freedom?"
Liberals don't see government as some alien third force that exists to wear down our freedoms. They see it as a necessary and useful tool for preventing and dealing with problems, arbitrating competition and disputes of competing interests and freeing people from the depradations of big, powerful interests they could never take on successfully as individuals.
My community sits over an acquifer that 180,000-plus people depend on for their water. A few years ago, local and federal authorities were called to a closed-down business that for about 25 years had done auto painting, body work and rechroming. Throughout that time, evidently, the operator of that business had dumped carcinogenic chemicals on and into the ground behind his shop. The poisons had sunk down into the ground and were dangerously close to getting into the acquifer.
Federal, state and local regulations prohibit that sort of thing. He got away with it because his business wasn't interstate, and because state and local authorities are relatively weak and do little oversight and regulation of small operations like his. If that businessman had played by the rules and properly disposed of cadmium, xylene, formaldehyde and other chemical wastes, he would've had to charge more. He might not have been able to stay in business.
As it was, that businessman had shut down his operation and disappeared, leaving local taxpayers to foot a bill that ran to hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean up the mess he left behind. The federal government helped out.
Right now, a woman in my area who allegedy ran a ponzi scheme using a payday loan business as a front faces the possibility of prosecution for defrauding several thousand people of about $135 million. Some of her investors are financially ruined for life.
(continues)
As this story unfolds, some hereabouts are asking why authorities weren't able to spot what was going on and stop it before so many lost so much. That's an especially good question in a region where lots people rail against big, intrusive government and how it interferes with people's ability to do business and get rich.
Common sense should make it clear that highly developed country of 312 million people that stretches across a continent and extends interests around the world wouldn't work very well or for very long with a small, weak central government. Common sense also indicates people who have a champagne taste for protection and services won't be satisfied for long if they restrict their government to a Kool-Aid budget.
An old tea party woman bellowed at her Congress member during a town hall meeting last year about high taxes and big, meddlesome government, ending with, "And keep government out of my Medicare!" Or words closely to that effect.
Just recently, a successful businessman was reported to have compained his million-dollars-a-year income, after taxes and expenses, left him and his family only about $400,000 to live on. We expect he'd be quick to join a woman who called a radio talk show not long ago to lambaste President Obama and Democrats for raising her taxes again and again, so that she's at the point of desperation.
In fact, Obama and the Democrats have cut her taxes several times and in several ways, and haven't raised them at all.
What I'm saying is that routine, nonspecific bitching and moaning about too-big, too-costly and too-intrusive government isn't worth the hot air that propels it. It's a meme that's usually not true. But when it's true at all, it's typically foolishly and wildly exaggerated.
We have government of a certain size not because anyone loves a big government. People want problems prevented, problems solved, competing interests peacefully resolved and some protection against interests and forces they can't deal with as individuals.
Unless the country shrinks to the size of Rhode Island, its people won't be happy with a government small enough to drown in a bathtub.
S.W.Anderson,
Agreed, liberals see govt as a tool to level the playing field. I do not feel govt should be in the business of social engineering.
The 3 examples I have sited clearly are examples of a reduction in liberty caused by a program that the govt hopes will benefit the greater good.
Now in the example you site, if the business man had played by the rules, who was in charge of seeing the rules were played by? My guess is a govt agency. Who failed to do their job that you paid them to do, govt. that's who. So while the laws were broken, in part the rule keepers are just as guilty. Further no new rules are needed, just the enforcing othe current rules will be fine.
Just a question, why did the the car shop close u after 25 years of being in business?
You don't have to read or watch all those links, they all say basically the same thing, and back up my point which is:
Look - rhetoric is one thing, and it really doesn't harm anyone so fire away with it. I don't begrudge Hoffa Jr. for talking tough, hell - he's in a though business.
What I care about is what people actually do. Nobody... not even Tim McVey... can compare to the raw power of Islamic Fundamentalism.
As for "they hate us for our freedom." That was stupid on Bush's part. They hate us because we're Infidels, period. They're extreme interpretation of Islam requires that anything "better" or bigger or whatever than Islam must be subdued, enslaved or destroyed. I think Bush said that because he had concern with ignorant Americans making the leap that ALL Muslims were radical. I think that insulted the intelligence of average Americans and was short sighted and only caused a lot of confusion.
That leads to my second point, which has to do with the topic of this post.
I think a lot of the security measures in place if not violating the rights of citizens at best simply don't work. The answer isn't longer lines at the air port... the answer is to track down the enemy and kill them.
It's hard to attack Americans when the attacker has a bad case of death.
John, so I got your comments mixed up with Free's one day, and that gave you the opportunity to invent an entire philosophy for me?
I remember that conversation. It was quite a while back.
Are you using inhouse tools to track blog histories? Or is it something anyone else can use. Don't tell me you spent hours reading old threads to find that.
Free, back in 2003, were you worried that Iraq would invade the USA? That was an argument I was hearing on the radio before we invaded Iraq after nine years of bombing it back to the stone age.
And you're right, the Abrahamic Religions are violent at their core. Look at the Old Testament. In it God rewards kings for genocide, rape, theft, murder, etc... A woman is made into a hero for sleeping with multiple partners in an enemy camp, then cutting their throats while they sleep. We even have directions on how to get an abortion and how much your priest should charge for one.
It's a real shame that you folks can't all just go to the ME, finish what was started thousands of years ago. And do it in the biblical manner. Stone age weapons, sling shots, bronze swords etc... No need to get the rest of the world involved or salt the earth with more DE. Slaughter each other in an eco-friendly way.
Weasldog,
John, so I got your comments mixed up with Free's one day,
If you mean that you got them mixed up with T. Paine, then I agree.
… and that gave you the opportunity to invent an entire philosophy for me?
I did not. I was just pointing out the irony that you guilty of the false charge you ascribed to me. It was funny, no?
Are you using inhouse tools to track blog histories? Or is it something anyone else can use. Don't tell me you spent hours reading old threads to find that.
I used my memory. It was not hard at all to find. I have an excellent memory and the debate was the one that introduced me personally to the entity that is Weasledog.
The FED is now interested in social media engineering, and taking bids for software.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/here-comes-fiattackwatch-bernanke-goes-watergate-prepares-eavesdrop-everything-mentioning-fed
Free, back in 2003, were you worried that Iraq would invade the USA? That was an argument I was hearing on the radio before we invaded Iraq after nine years of bombing it back to the stone age.
I'll put it like this, in 2003 I thought Iraq posed more of a threat to the security of the United States than Nazi Germany did in 1941. Iraq had a larger and more technologically advanced military. As is obvious, an enemy doesn't need to have the capability to launch an over seas invasion to pose a threat. Adolph Hitler couldn't do it any more than Saddam Hussein... yet for similar reasons it became necessary to destroy both dictators and their political backers (Nazis and Baath.)
""[America] will not be excluded from the operations and explosions of the Arab and Muslim mujahidin and all the honest strugglers in the world."
""Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?"
"It is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything...""
-Saddam Hussein
You have to take threats like this seriously.
e age weapons, sling shots, bronze swords etc... No need to get the rest of the world involved or salt the earth with more DE. Slaughter each other in an eco-friendly way.
I prefer to use technology, it ensures victory.
As for religion, while one can consider motive for consideration of tactics and strategy, it is irrelevant to this discussion.
I don't really care why Islamists hates us beyond knowing that they surely do. I don't sympathize or empathize with the cock roaches, I just step on them.
Just the Facts wrote: "Agreed, liberals see govt as a tool to level the playing field . . ." and immediately segues to "social engineering."
I mentioned and repeated a short list of things most people expect of government. What you refer to as leveling the playing field was just one. Then you made a leap, apparently propelled by preconceived notions, to social engineering.
It appears you at least skimmed my comment. But you apparently did so jumping to conclusions as you went. Social engineering isn't germane to anything being discussed.
". . .who was in charge of seeing the rules were played by?"
Again, did you really read my comment? Is there a chance your understanding of politics, public policy, economics, government and such are negatively affected by an inability or unwillingness to read accurately and think about what was actually said before responding?
If you'll read what I wrote, you'll see what you ask about explained as best I can explain it.
". . .why did the the car shop close u after 25 years of being in business?"
I don't think that was made clear in news accounts of that time. If it was, it's a detail I've forgotten.
Believe it or not, my response to your remark wasn't just an attempt at rebuke. You asked a fair question, one I wish more conservatives and libertarians would ask and try to understand the answer to. Not that you're likely to suddenly agree, but it can be helpful to understand where people you disagree with are coming from, and why.
I mentioned and repeated a short list of things most people expect of government. What you refer to as leveling the playing field was just one.
... well, what liberals expect of government maybe. ;)
I think it's clear the country is pretty evenly split on the role of Government right now
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149678/Americans-Express-Historic-Negativity-Toward-Government.aspx
free0352 said... "As for religion, while one can consider motive for consideration of tactics and strategy, it is irrelevant to this discussion."
I can tell by the way you keep harping on it.
"I don't really care why Islamists hates us beyond knowing that they surely do. I don't sympathize or empathize with the cock roaches, I just step on them."
Nice spin on a holocaust reference.
I guess likewise, I shouldn't worry as to why for centuries Christians have hated and wanted to slaughter all of the muslims. Genocide seems to be in their DNA.
But I do worry that this Christian Holy War is making the USA a dangerous place to live.
Free0352, said, "I'll put it like this, in 2003 I thought Iraq posed more of a threat to the security of the United States than Nazi Germany did in 1941."
The media propaganda campaign was very effective.
"You have to take threats like this seriously."
The best part is that everyone but you knew it was an empty threat.
Does it bother you that Iraq has turned into an excuse to pipe $billions / year of our tax dollars into the hands of Muslim sheiks, who turn around and finance anti-American interests?
Does it bother you that this was planned in advance of the war?
SW Anderson,
I was trying to lead up to my next point,did not mean to not disrespect you.
Here's what that was, I want the strongest most powerful govt in my life to be the one that's based in my state's capital. Followed by my city or county govt with the federal govt having the smallest impact on my life.
Here's why.
Effective govt at the state or local level is more effective and less expensive than the federal level..
The elected officials at the state and local level are easier to access, and as a rule more responsive than those from the federal level. Or they don't stay in office. Which I beleive makes them much more responsive to the people they represent than those elected to the federal level. If that is not the case then why does an election for the federal house or senate get funds from out side it's state or district? What does someone from CT have to gain by supporting an election in MT for Congressional seat in Wash. D.C.?
I beleive that state and local levels of govt would operate even better if they didn't have federal mandates on how to operate and govern their people.
Example: Dept of Education. Would it not be much more efficient to reduce this dept to all but 10 people? Why isn't the Dept of Education's only job is to divide into 50 equal shares the amount of their current federal budget and send to it back to 50 States for use in those states eduction budget. After all, that's were the money came from in the first place. If money is all that our education systems need to world class, what more efficient way of delivering can you come up with? And to do so does not require the current Dept of Education's machinery and staff to do so.
Go a step further, explained the Dept of Labor does? Do they help in the birthing of a baby's? Do they hire people? Do they watch to ensure federal labor laws are not broken? Isn't that the job of federal prosecutors and federal judges?
"Does it bother you that this was planned in advance of the war?"
Weaseldog, please provide your source for this statement that "the" war was planed in advance?
BTW, I have been lead to understand one of the things people do at the Service Academe's, war colleges and Pentagon is have war games based on possible wars in the future. Am I wrong?
Just the Facts, I get it that you want governments closer to the local level to have more power and the federal government to have less. For many sound, practical reasons, I don't agree, but I can understand you seeing virtue in that. I'm not going to debate it because it's off topic and would take up a lot of time and space here.
"why does an election for the federal house or senate get funds from out side it's state or district?"
Good question. The answer is that persons, groups and/or businesses outside the state or district really want to get one candidate in or really want to keep that candidate's opponent out of office. Also, outside donors want to see to it their favored political party gets control of the House and Senate. The more candidates of their favored party they can get elected across the country, the more likely it will be that their favored party gets control of the houses of Congress.
If it was up to me, elections would be funded by the public. Candidates for a given federal office would get an equal amount of campaign money and could not legally accept or spend any other donations from anyone, not even from themselves. That would go a good way toward eliminating the problem of out-of-state and out-of-district donors tilting elections and buying the loyalty of candidates.
Free0352, said "It does, but it's not the sheiks doing it. Had you been to Iraq, you would know exactly what a sheik does. You should look it up. There are however people who donate oil profits made in Iraq and elsewhere to Islamist causes. We should shoot them for it. I thought I made that clear?"
Right, it's the Pentagon sending the money there, and promptly 'losing' it.
And if anyone really believe that the Pentagon is losing $billions / year and doesn't know where it goes, I have swampland off the coast of Florida to sell you.
Every business plan is a conspiracy. People sit behind closed doors everyday and make plans to make money. There are quite a few people who do this to make money from war. War is a giant business. You call this a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, I call it reality.
There are many books and documentaries that help you understand how Germany was different than a nation that had been bombed back to the stone age for nine years and lost their capital in a 48 hour invasion.
I don't have a problem with knowing that you can't tell the difference. I'm good with that. And I believe you're good with that too.
On the last note that you want to kill all of the Islamic Terrorists, that's not much of a distinction when earlier you were arguing that everyone who worships Muhammad is a terrorist because their religion requires it.
Are you now only after terrorists, or would you like to go back to targeting people based on their religion? Can we go after Christians who are terrorists?
Or do they get a pass?
Just the Facts! said... "Weaseldog, please provide your source for this statement that "the" war was planed in advance?
BTW, I have been lead to understand one of the things people do at the Service Academe's, war colleges and Pentagon is have war games based on possible wars in the future. Am I wrong?"
It's based on strategies outlined and taught by the 'School of Americas'. The 'controlled chaos' is the goal. It keeps the government weak and dependent on US backing. The USA has done the same in South America and various well known islands.
We can also look at the Dick Cheney Energy Task Force Meetings for some direct evidence. Though all we have are a few pieces of eyewitness testimony and the records are still classified.
The war in Iraq is a business. It's a huge profit center. And in the vein, decisions are made to insure that the business keeps making money.
Anderson
If it was up to me, elections would be funded by the public.
I think in that situation you'd have government choosing candidates. That is a far more dangerous situation than the state we are in now. Frankly I don't think that would make the problem of corruption better, I think it would make it far worse.
You call this a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, I call it reality.
Well as long as we're going to make this up as we go along, maybe we can speculate if aliens were involved? How about the Illuminati or Opus Dei? Maybe since you can wildly speculate I could too? Maybe Saddam was second cousin to Dr. Evil? Yeah, maybe Saddam isn't really dead and all along it was Chaney and Saddam who both owned stock in BIG OIL and they set this whole thing up... September 11th and everything just to start a war to increase their stock values? Hey! This kind of make believe would make a killer movie script! We could get George Clooney!
Wouldn't it be hard to suspend the disbelief of the audience though? I mean, this is the organization that couldn't keep it's top secrets from lowly Private Bradley Manning, had the Joint Chiefs email accounts hacked by teenagers, and whose supervisors in government are famous for leaks? Oh wait, we'll just say that's all part of the EVIL PLOT, to trick people into thinking these super geniuses were really incompetent bafoons! Yeah!
And if anyone really believe that the Pentagon is losing $billions / year and doesn't know where it goes, I have swampland off the coast of Florida to sell you.
Clearly you don't have much experience with the Department of Defense. I saw the loose a whole tank once.
, that's not much of a distinction when earlier you were arguing that everyone who worships Muhammad is a terrorist because their religion requires it.
Um, pretty sure I never said that. I have said a minority of Muslims do indeed think so, and I still do because it's true. Some Muslims think their religion requires them to wipe out infidels. I'm also pretty consistent in saying that most Muslims think those people are nuts. I've said that most Muslims were totally cool (on this very post no less) and elsewhere argued against the point you are claiming I hold.
Stop projecting Weasel.
The war in Iraq is a business. It's a huge profit center.
Ah yes, our country has mad SO MUCH money off this war right. If that's true, why are we 14.7 trillion in debt again?
Last note... You and Smedly Butler have a lot in common. Him about Germany, you about Iraq. War isn't a racket, it's a necessary evil.
SW,
If it was up to me, elections would be funded by the public.
I'm with you.
Free,
I think in that situation you'd have government choosing candidates.
That would depend on how the funding would be directed and implemented. Seeking a way to end, or at least limit, the corruption is vital for the survival of democracy. Not doing anything will only ensure that the corruption grows in favor of Big Money.
Free0352, after an interesting free association exercise into the realm of fantasy went on to say, "Um, pretty sure I never said that. I have said a minority of Muslims do indeed think so, and I still do because it's true. Some Muslims think their religion requires them to wipe out infidels. I'm also pretty consistent in saying that most Muslims think those people are nuts. I've said that most Muslims were totally cool (on this very post no less) and elsewhere argued against the point you are claiming I hold.
Stop projecting Weasel."
You just went into a whole projecting rant yourself.
And here I am trying to make sure I clearly understand you, and you're still giving me crap.
Like I said, if it's murdering extremists you don't like, then we're in agreement. I really got the idea from you that everyone who has died in Iraq is a terrorist and you're glad they died.
Madeliene Albrecht in a famous interview acknowledged that over a millions children died because of the Clinton blockade. I mentioned this previously and you were glad these terrorists died. Then I mentioned that over two million Iraqis have died as a direct result of the current war, and said you didn't feel a thing for them. You made it clear that you're glad that two million men, women and children, senior citizens and bases have died, because they are the enemy.
Now you're changing your tone. If you'd like to clarify your position that's cool. I'll accept that you got a little excited and you and I weren't discussing the same things.
I said, "The war in Iraq is a business. It's a huge profit center."
To which you replied, "Ah yes, our country has mad SO MUCH money off this war right. If that's true, why are we 14.7 trillion in debt again?"
Do you honestly believe that the people who build million dollar missiles to blow up schools and electrical plants with, are communists who do it for free?
When you were deployed, did you think your uniform, bullets, guns, boots, the gas you burned, the vehicles you traveled in were all provided by communists who hate capitalism and profits?
Do you think your meals were provided by communists who hate America and capitalism?
Do you think the contractors who accepted $4.5 million to build a water park in Baghdad were hated money?
The Kuwaiti contractors with their harems of child sex slaves from Thailand, who built the Military compound called an Embassy, all worked for free?
I thought you were a capitalist at heart. A real capitalist will look at an operation like this and see dollar signs spinning.
that huge flow of money pouring into Iraq is making those billionaire sheiks in Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, huge profits. You told me that you worked with them. While you were up in those penthouse towers, overflowing with expensive art and servants at your beck and call, didn't you get the feeling that they like money?
Or did you just work the the sheiks further down the food chain?
here is my rebuttal so Sir John Myste whose comments are in italics.
I am arrogant about the entire topic, which includes strategy, sales, deliberation, forms (technique, manner, method).
If your sentence ended with just the first 3 words, I would concur. -)
Let me first address your list, which is not really the right target in my opinion, as it is does not represent the top 95% of fallacies that form most arguments:
I am pretty sure he googled his list, as it was random and not always the most common ones.
No John, the list came from Irving Copi, whose books on logic have sold more than yours.
I do not agree with number 2 either.
Number 2 was about abortion. There is a BIG difference between the opposing sides.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx
Summary of 2011 U.S. Abortion Views by Party ID
...............Republicans Independents Democrats
"Pro choice" 28% ..........51% ...........68%
"Pro life" ....67% ..........41% ...........27%
Gallop also said in a 2007 poll that 59% of liberals were for the death penalty, so I have to admit my view of most liberals being against the death penalty is wrong.
That would depend on how the funding would be directed and implemented.
Imangine for a minute that a Republican majority and president got into office and rigged the body of government responsible for allocation of funds so that only Joe Liberman or a Zell Miller type could get federal funding to run while they ran ultra conservative religous right types.
Do you think that is possible? Do you still think your idea makes sense?
That would depend on how the funding would be directed and implemented.
Your blog ate my post I think.
Anyway, imagine for a minute a Republican majority with a Republican president were elected (it's happened before after all) and they were able to cook the agency responsible for allocation of political funding.
So imagine what that election would look like. Your primary choices would be Joe Liberman and a Zell miller clone for the Democrats and the Republicans would be Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum. All your Congressional and Senatorial races would be various versions of the same choice.
Still think your idea is a good one?
All these lengthy, thoughtful comments yet nobody here has bothered to take even so much as an afternoon to look into the details of the official 9/11 mythology. The official story of the events of 9/11 is so transparently bogus and laughable a child could see through it with even the most cursory of examinations. Here, I'll help you start your much-needed research by giving you a few threads to pull on:
1.) The alleged "hijacker pilots" had no experience whatsoever in flying anything with jet engines and had proven consistently that they were quite incompetent in even flying small propellor engine planes. That they could allegedly jump in the cockpits of jet airliners and fly them like experts strains credulity far past the breaking point.
2.) The alleged "hijackers" were to an individual so un-Islamic that they drank liquor heavily, snorted cocaine, ate pork, went to strip bars where they got lapdances and gambled in Vegas. That they would then be so allegedly devoted to Islam as to be willing to sacrifice their lives for their religion and take some "infidels" with them is laughable.
3.) Several "hijackers" turned up alive and well days later and demanded an explanation as to why their names and photos were being used in connection to the 9/11 story, as reported by the BBC. Nevertheless the American corporate-owned news media still continues with its same "nineteen hijackers" nonsense as if this didn't occur.
4.) Several "hijackers" lived in military base housing, one had attended the Defense Language Institute at Monterey, California, several others lived just outside the gates of the N.S.A. in Laurel, Maryland, others lived in close proximity to C.I.A. headquarters and still others lived with an F.B.I. informant. Sound like "Islamic radical hijackers"? Or C.I.A. asset patsies who thought they were in training to be C.I.A. drug smuggling pilots?
5.) None of the airline pilots from the alleged four airliners in question entered the simple four-digit code that sends the message "Hey, I'm being hijacked". Not one.
6.) The Pentagon was struck in the one wedge that was under renovation at the time meaning comparatively few military personnel were present that morning there instead of the other four wedges. And the one wedge that was struck had recently been structurally reinforced to make it more difficult for a massive fire there to spread elsewhere. And it was the farthest point in the building from Rumsfeld's office. And consider: If one intends to crash into the Pentagon and do the most damage possible one would fly the plane down into the roof, not zoom around and fly just above the ground to strike it in the outside wall. Not to mention that it would be infinitely easier to hit the roof. So wasn't it nice of the "hijacker terrorists" to go out of their way to make sure that when they hit the Pentagon they did so in a way that would inflict the least amount of damage and death possible? So they were humanitarian terrorists then?
7.) The "airliner" that crashed into the Pentagon left no wings, no fuselage, no tail section, no luggage etc. on the Pentagon's lawn and the official story literally tells us that the wings folded alongside the fuselage and the whole plane was sucked into the building, then all 255,000 lbs. of airplane vaporized. Yeah.
8.) The "airliner" that crashed near Shanksville in Pennsylvania also vaporized itself into nothingness, just a crater in the ground. But wouldn't you know it, even though a great big airliner vanished into thin air they were still able to "find" a "hijacker's" passport, youth hostel card and a bandana in pristine condition? Just like the "hijacker's" passport "found" days after 9/11 near Ground Zero. Wow they should make airplanes and buildings out of paper and plastic so as to be as indestructable as those convenient passports, right?
9.) The N.I.S.T. and 9/11 whitewash Commission both admitted that the Twin Towers, once the "collapses" started, came down at freefall rate in air. Meaning they expect you to believe that all that solid concrete and steel underneath the uppermost falling mass offered no more resistance to said mass than air. This is preposterous in the real world unless one is talking about controlled demolitions using explosive charges, a common sense issue considering when one thinks about it one quickly realizes that something (i.e. explosives) had to have reduced the solid majority of skyscraper to such a state that it is unable to offer any more resistance than air. Common sense OK? Solid things in the real world offer many magnitudes more resistance than air unless one disintegrates them with explosive charges. Which would explain the numerous eyewitness accounts of first responders who said they saw, heard and felt explosions, some even being blown down by the overpressure wave. It would also explain the "collapse" of WTC # 7 building which came down later that day immediately after two parallel lines of puffs of smoke went up the face of the building. Wonder what that was. Maybe demolition charges? Ya think?
10.) The most expensive and technologically advanced air force the world has ever seen was no more effective that morning, the most important morning of its existence, than if they had been flying ancient biplanes. Part of the reason is that most of the fighter planes in the northeast U.S. had been conveniently sent to Alaska for military exercises scheduled for the morning of 9/11 so they would be far out of the way. (What a strange coincidence, right?)Others that remained were scrambled to intercept with no ammo for their guns and no missiles and instead of being flown straight to Manhattan were flown by a circuitous route taking them out over the Atlantic and eventually to New York. But if it was incompetence then why was the highest ranking Air Force officer, Gen. Richard Myers who was then the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not fired or court martialed? Instead, a month after 9/11, he was PROMOTED to full chairman.
11.) In the week just before 9/11 there were record amounts of "put" options placed on the stock of United Airlines, American Airlines and several companies based in the WTC. Put options are basically betting that a certain stock is going to plummet in value. Was someone just a really really really good guesser?
12.) The mayor of San Francicso at the time, Willie Brown, was warned in advance to not fly on September 11, 2001 and to avoid the World Trade Center in New York. More psychics at work I guess.
13.) When Bush was in Booker Elementary that morning and was told by Andy Card that "America is under attack by terrorists" then instead of being allowed to remain in that school for over a half hour, even giving a short press conference on its front steps (!), Bush's Secret Service agents SHOULD have immediately whisked him away to a much safer location. Were the official myth of 9/11 true then letting him remain there would have been putting Bush's life at risk, their own lives at risk as well as all those schoolkids. So they would have had to know that Bush wasn't even a possible target that morning, something they would have absolutely no way of even guessing about if 9/11 wasn't an inside job.
14.) Bush had war plans for the invasion of Afghanistan on his desk ready to be signed two days before 9/11, even though it would have been politically impossible for the U.S. to have launched the invasion of Afghanistan WITHOUT a 9/11 event. So, is Bush clairvoyent? Or was 9/11 an inside job?
15.) Bush and Cheney stonewalled against allowing a commission to investigate 9/11 to even be formed for over a year, only relenting when they were allowed to dictate its scope (no going beyond the official "nineteen hijackers" myth) and the terms by which they themselves would appear before it, namely behind closed doors, with Bush and Cheney together so their stories can't be contrasted, with their attorneys present, NOT under oath and with no recordings made and no notes allowed to be kept. Now does this sound like the actions of two men with nothing to hide?
These and other bits of evidence all point to one inescapable conclusion: The official story of 9/11 is an impossible myth and by extension the ones forcing this myth down America's throat are the ones responsible. Ignoring it won't change this, it will only make it that much more likely that if there is another false flag attack you will again be a dupe and fall for it.
This is John Myste posting comment for RedState, who attempted to post it, but could not get it to post for some reason.
Here is the comment:
John, I posted my rebuttal to your posts on Dave Dubya's blog but either Dave has deleted it or Dave may have passed on, so I have decided to post it on your blog for your immediate attention.
The following is my post on Dave Dubya's blog:
here is my rebuttal to Sir John Myste whose comments are in italics.
I am arrogant about the entire topic, which includes strategy, sales, deliberation, forms (technique, manner, method).
If your sentence ended with the first 3 words, I would concur. -)
Let me first address your list, which is not really the right target in my opinion, as it is does not represent the top 95% of fallacies that form most arguments:
I am pretty sure he googled his list, as it was random and not always the most common ones.
No John, the list came from Irving Copi, whose books on logic have sold more than yours.
I do not agree with number 2 either.
Number 2 was about abortion. There is a BIG difference between the opposing sides.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx
Summary of 2011 U.S. Abortion Views by Party ID
......................Republicans Independents Democrats
"Pro choice"..........28% 51% 68%
"Pro life"............67% 41% 27%
Gallop also said in a 2007 poll that 59% of liberals were for the death penalty, so I have to admit my view of most liberals being against the death penalty is wrong.
@RedStateFred
This is the response to your missing post, which should show up here shortly. I tried to contact you, but I could not figure out how. I wanted to send you an email.
Blogger has known random issue with internet explorer. The best browser to post on when you are having trouble is Mozilla Firefox. I suspect if you are using IE and had switched to FireFox, your comment would have posted. Firefox is a free download.
I am arrogant about the entire topic, which includes strategy, sales, deliberation, forms (technique, manner, method).
If your sentence ended with the first 3 words, I would concur. -) hahahaha. Thanks for the grin.
Let me first address your list, which is not really the right target in my opinion, as it is does not represent the top 95% of fallacies that form most arguments:
I am pretty sure he googled his list, as it was random and not always the most common ones.
No John, the list came from Irving Copi, whose books on logic have sold more than yours. So far, perhaps, but this life ain’t over yet. The list appeared to be disorganized incomplete and random. It did not contain some of the more common fallacies and did contain lesser ones, all mentioned by their Latin name. However, I can see this coming from a book. I have several books that are just like that, so you have my apologies.
I do not agree with number 2 either.
Number 2 was about abortion. There is a BIG difference between the opposing sides.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx
Summary of 2011 U.S. Abortion Views by Party ID
......................Republicans Independents Democrats
"Pro choice"..........28% 51% 68%
"Pro life"............67% 41% 27%
Gallop also said in a 2007 poll that 59% of liberals were for the death penalty, so I have to admit my view of most liberals being against the death penalty is wrong. I am not sure what number two was now. It was so long ago. If we are mixing the concepts of abortion and the death penalty, that is of course, fallacious, as we are assuming a conclusion to one dispute to help prove another.
Thanks for hosting this debate here, Dave... I don't have the patience for it at my blog, or the inclination to even cover these incidents.
I am quite torn, to be honest.
Oops, I forgot I had moderation for this post. I didn't think the discussion would continue.
Sorry.
Free,
I would start the campaign funding process only by consent and contribution of a Blue Ribbon bipartisan commission with unaffiliated public interest groups also represented. It's everybody's concern so wide representation would be needed to determing the process.
Anonymous,
Thank you for the information.
Daisy,
We are all torn at some point in the safety v liberty dilemma.
Neither are, or can be, absolute.
a Blue Ribbon bipartisan commission with unaffiliated public interest groups
Your faith in government NOT being corrupt is really quite staggering. Also I would add, this eliminates all hope of third parties, totally disenfranchising them. As a card carrying member of the Libertarian party, that would obviously affect me.
Good news to everyone reading this comment. I want to share my testimony on how i belong to the world famous illuminate fraternity society, and how i have become more famous, by acquiring huge wealth, riches and fame. Here is how my life changed. A friend of mine that was always giving me money, because he was very rich, wealthy, famous and successful. On one beautiful day, he said to me that he is not going to give me any money, that he is going to show me the way to be successful in life. So i was very happy, i never knew he was a member of the great illuminate society. So i was initiated to the world famous illuminate society, and few days later, i was awarded a contract worth millions of Dollars. Right now as i speak, in my business i am doing very well, i travel the world on business deals, i am now the one that gives money out to people, before life was so hard for me and my family. If you want to belong to us today? Send us an email now> Worldofriches@gmail.com and your life will change for good
JOIN THE ILLUMINATI CALL +27620171252 OR illuminatsatanictemple@gmail.com JOIN THE ILLUMINATI FROM SOUTH AFRICA, USA, OR ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD TODAY BE RICH, FAME, AND POSSES POWER.email us on illuminatisatanictemple@aim.com OR call us on +27620171252 for immediate initiation New members registration is now open online now !!!!! BENEFITS GIVEN TO NEW MEMBERS WHO JOIN ILLUMINATI. A Cash Reward of USD $300,000 USD A New Sleek Dream CAR valued at USD $120,000 USD A Dream House bought in the country of your own choice One Month holiday (fully paid) to your dream tourist destination. One year Golf Membership package A V.I.P treatment in all Airports in the World A total Lifestyle change Access to Bohemian Grove Monthly payment of $1,000,000 USD into your bank account every month as a member One Month booked Appointment with Top 5 world Leaders and Top 5 Celebrities in the World. If you are interested call the agent now +27620171252 or send your e-mail to illuminatsatanictemple@gmail.com for immediately initiation.New members registration is now open online
Post a Comment