We must stand tall in Iraq, war on terror
Iraq is the current battle, and failure — that is to say, retreat — is not an alternative. At the same time, we must also remain mindful of a larger problem — the war on terror.
This war is not waged simply between al-Qaida and the United States. It’s a larger fight that Muslim religious fanatics are waging on modernity. The entire civilized world is threatened by the terrorist savagery.
A U.S. victory in Iraq means a stable, pluralistic government in the heart of the Middle East. Success in the war will then come with much less bloodshed.
A U.S. defeat means further instability and bloodshed in a dangerous part of the world. The price for winning peace in the war then becomes even more human suffering.
Gen. David Petraeus’ strategy has been in full implementation for only a short time and is reportedly showing signs of success. It is essential — to win the peace in the war — that Petraeus be allowed the time required to win the battle for Iraq.
Both in the short term in Iraq and, more important, the long term in the war, this is not the time to go wobbly.
James Jones, Littleton
You are totally right,but because the support givin by the democrats to Al Qaeda this war has been prolong with additional American troops and Iraqi cilvilians killed.It's time we make these democrats liable for the killings of these people.
Posted by Keith on August 23, 2007 12:27 AMBush has had everything he has wanted for this war, what has been held back by the Democrats? The Dems still have no real power and have given Bush everything he wants. So please enlighten me Keith how have the Dem's killed people? Also Bush has had 4 years and nothing has gotten better. You never give any facts or data to back up your statements...
Posted by Mike D. on August 23, 2007 01:43 AMApparently none of you know the history of the region. The various factions in Iraq, part of the Ottoman Empire, have fought for thousands of years and will for another thousand. Iraq as a country WILL NEVER be at peace no matter how much we spend or how long we stay because the people (the various groups composing Iraq) hated each other for eons.
Every person familiar with that area said DON'T GO IN, but Bush already wanted to get into Iraq even before he was the president and definitely BEFORE September 11th http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm
So here we are between a rock and a hard place in a classic lose-lose situation where we can't leave because Iraq would descend to civil war and it would create a power vacuum in the region, and we can't stay because it's bankrupting US.
Posted by on August 23, 2007 01:51 AMThe unnamed poster at August 23, 2007 01:51 AM is absolutely correct.
For those of you who have forgotten, IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 (despite Bush & Cheney's lies) and - guess what - no WMD either. Bush the first declined to take out Saddam Hussein (whom Reagan helped put in power, lest we forget) because his experience told him that precisely what has happened there (civil war) would happen. When he made that decision, Cheney & Rumsfeld AGREED. Unfortunately, it took a sadistic, cruel, vicious man like Hussein to keep the lid on the powder keg - and W removed it.
Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden (you remember him - mastermind of of 9/11) is still thumbing his nose at the US, and planning future attacks. The US is so embroiled in Iraq, we can't be bothered to go after him. If W had to go after a country (instead of the putative head of AlQaeda), he should have gone after Saudi Arabia - home of 15 of the 19 terrorists, home of the Wahhabi jihadists who fund terrorist activities - and the country bin Laden is a prince (literally) in. Or - how about (as Obama Barrack, Dem candidate from Illinois has pointed out) Pakistan - which is harboring him? Wait - those are oil allies.
We had most of the civilized world on our side after the 9/11 attacks - including moderate members of Islam - and many countries sent help when we went into Afghanistan to root out bin Laden. The US threw it all away when Bush declared preemptive war on Iraq - and made the US & the world a more dangerous place to live.
As far as this war in Iraq being so critical - let's bring back the draft (include the ladies this time - they are already serving over there) - and rescind all the tax cuts to the uber-rich to pay for it. If we are all going to benefit in the end, we should all pay some price too.
Posted by Mary on August 23, 2007 05:46 AMJames, your counsel is foolish. The United States does not the stomach nor the callousness to be the Overlord of Iraq. As we have shown in the Phillipines and VietNam we cannot chose capable puppet leaders to run the countries we conquer. We just suck at the colony business, probably because deep in the American Heart we think the people of a place should choose their own future rather than have their Masters impose a future upon them.
We should leave iraq IMMEDIATELY. We have never cared about the people of Iraq, so please don't pretend to care now. An adversary that abhores modernity is no serious threat to us as long as we end immigration to the US and hold the country that issues a passport accountable for the actions of a visitor to the US.
So you really believe that people that make do not make the weapons of war (planes, ships, armored vehicles, even their own rifle) pose a meaningful threat to us?
The truth is that Big Oil, the Empire Amercian Crowd and the Israel Supremacists are benefiting from the conquest of Iraq. Do you want to ignore this ugly truth so desparately that believe and perpetuate the foolish advice you counsel?
Posted by Dave on August 23, 2007 06:27 AMJames:
Who will be writing the report on how Petreus' strategy is working?
How much credibility do they have?
How do they propose to bridge the schism between the Shia and Sunni that has existed for over a thousand years- a necessity if you want a "stable, pluralistic government in the heart of the Middle East?
In short: If wishes were horses...
Posted by Charles B on August 23, 2007 07:05 AMThe SURGE is working...and Howard Dean is just 5 feet 4 inches tall. Now that sure says a lot, doesn't it?
Reterat time at the DNC. What is the Benedict Arnold crowd, who already declared our defeat in Iraq, going to do with all those white flags that they planned to bring to Denver next year?
I got a good idea what they can do with those flags.
Posted by Hank on August 23, 2007 07:07 AMStand tall in this Middle East Plantation occupation? Sure, when I see the kids of St. Elway, MAstermind, Owens, Allard, Tancredo, Suthers, Mitt, Rudy, Fred "Tommy Gun" Thompson, Marilyn Manson, Wadham, etc., suited up in Iraq-NAM, as targets and sitting ducks.
Posted by centennialslavebehinddacottoncurtain on August 23, 2007 07:10 AMPlantation, imperialism, bad U.S., bad, bad...
"And them darkies down in the South, they neva knew no freedom. We be like lettin' children out in the jungle if we free them there slaves....."
Or, they've been a fightin' for thousands of years.. .they goin to be fightin' for a thousand more..... of course so has humankind, but we still have peace in the majority of the world....hmmmmmmmmm.....
I heard the same racist bigoted remarks about integration as I hear about Iraqi freedom...and guess what, it was from the Democrats too... yep, those same compassionate, for the "working man", for "diversification" people....yep them there same ones......
Posted by Father OMalley on August 23, 2007 07:34 AMPropaganda 101, you get an A
Posted by Karl Rove on August 23, 2007 07:35 AMHonestly, you think we are supposed to win some sort of a religious war? They have been killing each other for thousands of years based on their different beliefs in the unknowable. I don't see it that way and don't think that is what we should be doing. Until people realize that religion is no reason to fight a war and that different religious beliefs are a ridiculous reason to kill each other then we will continue with futile wars. I hope as humans evolve that religion will just go away.
Posted by just sayin' on August 23, 2007 07:54 AMI'm starting to wonder if Keith is just being sarcastic. No one is really that stupid.
Posted by just sayin' on August 23, 2007 07:56 AMThe only thing that needs to be considered by those who approve of this war, (The only thing in this occupation that is anything like a war is people are dying as a result of it ), a nation can be conquered but, no war in all of history has ever stopped an internal religious war within a country. No army can accomplish this and for some reason Bush and his war supporting adherents miss or refuse to ackowledge the historical truth of this.
You see, it has nothing to do with anything we understand. It has to do with ancient zealous religious belief, the most powerful thing in human nature. And the various religious factions in Irag, hell, in the whole of the Middle East, have been killing each other, based on and justified by their religious beliefs, for thousands of years and no doubt will continue for another thousand.
Why this country's military and political leaders can't see that it is this thousands of years old, religious belief inspired internal conflict and the social havoc it creates, can not be cured with guns, I will never know except it does prove the old axiom true,
" Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it".
No one can cure it but those involved in it and the terrorism that it breeds would turn back into an internal conflict without us remaining there giving them a reason and a purpose to continue, and ultimately self destruct. There are and will always be terrorists factions, it's a natural function of the political/ social system in the Mideast and, it too has existed for thousands of years based on, once again, a religious belief.
This kind of thing has outlasted any military or political change throughout the entire history of that region. What convoluted, idiotic reasoning make us think we can change it over night, realitively speaking. And , without changing that you will never,ever change the political and social conditions of the Mideast.
If you want to stay there for a hundred years ruling with a iron hand, like communism use to do, you might maybe have a chance of putting a dent in it but, maybe not even then.
Remember what happened when the Russians pulled out of the Baltic States, the people went right back to the same old religious belief wars that were an integral part of their history. What about when Russia tried with all thier modern technology and vastly superior weapons to change Afghanistan? They could not do it. It was the same thing that happened to us when we decided to involve our armed forces to, "stop communism at the door step" in South East Asia, that one cost us over 50,000 American lives and we never, repeat never accompished anything the military wanted never mind changing the region, All our efforts there only resulted in uncountable thousands of civilian deaths added to our own losses.
When are we going to learn to pay attention to history and ignore those who refuse to understand it. Lord, please let it be soon, It happened to my generation, let's not allow another generation of young men to be devestated the hell that is war.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 23, 2007 08:00 AM just sayin',
I regret to inform you that Keith and hank and drav are indeed that stupid....that's what the cons have counted on. Pantywaist scared little girls are easily manipulated.
These guys need to grow a pair.
Is it just me, or does this guy sound like a parrot?
Posted by jimi99 on August 23, 2007 08:23 AMTides surge, politicians slither, fat cats roll,in money, and the American public sleeps while old men start wars that young men die in. So it has been and so it will be for ever and ever, Amen.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 23, 2007 08:38 AMThey're just not able to tell the difference between the war in Iraq and the war on terror yet. Give em time, they'll learn about it.
Posted by Larry on August 23, 2007 08:39 AMTHE LEGACY OF VIETNAM:
The president made his most overt analogy yet to the Democratic-led Congress' abandonment of Vietnam in the 1970s, and reminded the assembled veterans of the price paid in blood by so many:
"In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution," Bush said. "In Vietnam, former allies of the U.S. and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea."
He added that "one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps,' and 'killing fields.' "
Posted by Hank on August 23, 2007 09:09 AMHank get it right for once. The price paid by our being there in the first place was over 50,000 American soldiers lives. The other lives would have been lost anyway, regardless of what we did or did not do, due to the thousands of years old internal wars that have been raged in South East Asia since recorded history began. No, repeat no war has ever stopped the internal religious belief wars between historical enemies within any country ever and will never. In this there is a direct comparison between Iraq and Veit Nam and it is nothing less than a design for failure if we don't recognize it.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 23, 2007 09:42 AMToo bad Bush didn't learn the real lesson of Vietnam. Don't get involved with a quagmire that is not going to end. Maybe if he hadn't gone AWOL and actually served he could have learned the lesson. Interesting how the right wing avoided any comparisons to Vietnam in the past but now they use it to argue against leaving Iraq?? Bush is a real buffoon.
Posted by Hank brought it up on August 23, 2007 09:46 AMThe leason we learn from history is that we forget the leasons of history. You can conquer a country, occupy a country but, you can never chage the belief system of the people in a country and, without doing that you can't win anything but loss of life, distruction and the hatred of the people you thought you were helping.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 23, 2007 09:50 AMHank:
An estimated 2 to 3 million people died in the Viet Nam war. The killing continued for a year or so in large numbers after we left.
There is not a single reliable source that suggests the killing increased once we left.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by Charles B on August 23, 2007 10:30 AMJJ,
"It’s a larger fight that Muslim religious fanatics are waging on modernity. " Agree totally. But I hope you're not conflating the "war on terror" with Iraq.
"A U.S. victory in Iraq means a stable, pluralistic government in the heart of the Middle East" Don't agree.
This is a region that has always been riven by bloodshed, tribalism & religious strife - ask the British who were there in the 1920s. There has NEVER been a stable, pluralistic democracy in the Middle East (besides Israel & some would dispute that). But if Bush & his cronies had studied any amount of history, they would've learned that before this ridiculous misadventure.
I'm fine with giving the "surge " a chance - but I have the uneasy feeling that Bush's bumbling is going to end up with us having a permanent presence there - always trying to put out fires & quell tribal & religious strife - and always under attack. Bush has let the genie out of the bottle & it can't be put back.
Posted by drew on August 23, 2007 10:35 AMcharles b.,Hank is right again,you are a perfect example of a liberal.You refuse to accept the facts.
Posted by Keith on August 23, 2007 10:39 AMCharles B: "There is not a single reliable source that suggests the killing increased once we left."
The opposite is also true; there's no credible source verifying that the killing didn't increase once we left as a direct result of our leaving. All reports addressing this were published by ideological or agenda driven interest groups. There has been no identifiable truly objective report supporting either position.
Essentially, for someone to use a report and analysis supporting either view point they are using a report that justifies their opinion, not established verifiable fact.
Pol Pot, the Khmur Rouge and Cambodian killing fields were real. The hunting down, almost to extinction the Hmong and montagards were factual occurrences. The confiscation, along with the elimination of the inhabitants of many agrarian villages are documented fact. The imprisonment, starvation and, in many cases, summary execution of members or perceived sympathizers of the ARVN are documented fact.
While there are three district theories as to the causation of these actions, no one theory has held water on it's own. All have recognizable flaws and embellished component theories within their construct and final assertions.
Posted by krait 2 on August 23, 2007 12:04 PMyet another post full of morons who cannot compromise or think on their own . this country is doomed because we are easily ruled !
stupid morons!
I just now thought of a used to be snappy, now a bit limp but still woth saying answer based on the title of James Jones letter,
What do you mean we, You go stand tall in Iraq if you want to, as for me, If I go there, which would require my taking taking 25 hits of blue window pane LSD and going stark raving mad, I will try to stay as low to the ground as possible, actually I would prefer to be underground in a bunker with six foot thick walls and 50 years worth of supplies among which is included four or five cases of really good scotch, a refrigerator full of ice and satilite TV.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 23, 2007 01:39 PMkrait 2:
And what happened in Viet Nam after we'd been gone a few years?
The mass killings had largely stopped.
Posted by Charles B on August 23, 2007 02:26 PMYo Hank, Stuckey, and Keith: You need to channel on PBS and click programs like Frontline to get the facts which those dumbcrats don't know. In the last 8 months, Bush says 12,000 Al Qaeda have been captured; in Iraq 75 helicopters have been lost with many to accidents while the Iraqi patriots (terrorists) get better weapons and better accuracy due to Bush policy which delivers less than half the humvees resistant to IED attack. Bush has built 16 prisons which have become defacto boot camps because the prisoners were neutral when imprisoned. Guys: "defacto" means "in fact." There are so many facts. You can get Frontline on line. Those "democraps" don't know nothing, not even that god got to be god because “The impotence of God is infinite.”
Posted by jvd on August 23, 2007 02:33 PMA good point! Standing tall is essential in winning in Iraq. Defeat is not an option..
Posted by Brian Stuckey on August 23, 2007 02:37 PMI don`t think the people in Iraq want a democracy. It is not clear to me what kind of government they want.
If we can just hang in there for another 5 years, all the middle class and moderate Iraqis will be able to leave. One family at a time.
Actually we could use the war money for transportation and help them out to Jordan or wherever they want to go.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 23, 2007 03:02 PMSharon B.
Nice try, at least you've done your homework and came up with an idea for how to get us out while helping the Iraqi people.
I'm afraid our esteemed friends on the fringe right (are you reading keith, Mary, dravur KW?) , just bitch and moan about Democrats, as they've got nothing left but vitriol.
There's an old Native American tradition of not complaining about a problem unless you have three possible solutions FOR that problem.
That would be refreshing.
Hang in there Sharon, there ARE sane Americans out here.
Posted by dmz on August 23, 2007 06:14 PMCharles B
"And what happened in Viet Nam after we'd been gone a few years?
The mass killings had largely stopped."
It took a little over four years for the mass killings and mass disappearances of civilians to cease. So you are essentially correct in that it ended after a few years of our withdrawal. But, the intervening years were devastating to the general populations.
The exact motivation or causation of all of the killings will never be known with certainty. However, the orders issued for the military, with oft-times corresponding bounties, directing the extermination of the Hmong and Montagard tribes for their active support of, and participation with the US military objectives is established fact.
Amnesty International had compiled a pretty valid portfolio of evidence for this group's slaughter. Unfortunately, outside of braying at the moon they couldn't do anything with it and the effort was subsequently dropped for more politically advantageous causes.
Posted by Krait 2 on August 23, 2007 06:37 PM Mary,
Please excuse me. I meant to say Hank in my list of name-calling extremists, not you.
You make valid points and can do it with common sense and decency.
My best regards .
Peace...........dmz
Posted by dmz on August 23, 2007 06:42 PM
Krait 2
I don't doubt any of what you say.
My point remains valid. If Iraq is analogues to Viet Nam, then the mass killing won't stop until we leave.
Posted by Charles B on August 23, 2007 07:35 PMOf course, the fact that we carpet bombed Cambodia--and drove an already poor, hungry, backwards society to support "populatists" like the KR and Pol Pot had nothing to do with the bloodshed. It was all because we pulled out. Riiiight.
Honestly, I don't know how some people get to be so stupid.
Posted by Geez on August 23, 2007 07:48 PMdrew,
I think you're being a bit hard on the middle eastern countries. There are countries, UAE federation and Kuwait, that are not self-governing but they are stable, prosperous and do not foster terrorism.
Lebanon would very likely develop into a stable, self-governing state were it not for Syrian hegemony. Jordan will develop similarly if the neighborhood ever settles down and a solution to the Palestinian problem can be found.
Turkey is a stable Muslim state and I would not discount the Iranians abiltity to overturn the Mullah's rule in the not too distant future.
None of these countries will look the US any time soon but, at the same time, there is a lot of territory between where they might develop and the Taliban-type government that ruled in Afghan or the Baathist regime in Iraq.
It is true that none of this development is a certainty but the question is, what is the better alternative?
We can't just ignore them and strengthen our defenses at home. We are and will remain a free and open society and they will find a way to come after us here.
The better strategy is to foster environments where the violence of the terrorists will be rejected by peole with a hope for freedom and prosperity as we have in the US. In that way we can drain the terrorist swamps.
The threat of fascists Islamists extend beyond the middle east and different challenges will require different solutions in places like Thailand, Indonesia and Pakistan.
We can't get stuck on Iraq.
There is no one-size-fits-all strategy in fighting the war on terror. The parameters are unique in history. But the best approach is to base our tactics on the principle of spreading freedom and fostering economic prosperity as an antidote to the despair the terrorist feed on in all parts of the globe.
The Iraqi people have turned out to vote in large numbers, under the threat of violence on two occasions. I think Sharon B is incorrect in her assement that the people in Iraq don't want to be free. I think they do, but primary concern is always security for any people.
The privilegre of voting is not especially important to people afraid to venture out at night.
Providing that level of security locally lies at the heart of the Petraeus strategy.
The lack of success to date is more a failure of the political classes (theirs and ours) than the will of the people who, when you get right down to it, are not that much different from us.
Posted by James Jones on August 23, 2007 09:25 PMJJ's specialty:
"We can't just ignore them and strengthen our defenses at home."
The false choice...
By the way, does anyone around here write more and say less?
Posted by Charles B on August 24, 2007 06:40 AMJJ, don`t re-word my posts. I said I don`t know what kind of government they want. I`m sure they want to be free, and free of us.
Now behave, since I as starting to like you.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 24, 2007 07:03 AM
Charles B,
I would never write you a post that long. I know how tired you lips get.
Posted by James Jones on August 24, 2007 07:28 AMSharon B
Re-word your post?
I don`t think the people in Iraq want a democracy.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 23, 2007 03:02 PM
So they want freedom, they just don't want a democracy. Is that it?
Posted by James Jones on August 24, 2007 07:34 AMJJ,
I don't think the outlook for democracy in the Middle East is at all rosy. The gulf states are "stable" - but only because the people are under the thumb of the ruling elites - who would never dream of allowing a democratic vote - and all dissent is quickly squashed. And there is a seething underbelly of discontent all over the region at authoritarian governments. And this has made people more likely to embrace Islam & its radical fringe. If you look at a country like Egypt - the Muslim Brotherhood would win in a landslide tomorrow if Mubarak allowed free elections. But that won't happen - and the people there hate the US even more because we prop up the regime by giving huge amounts of money.
I don't know what the solution is, but if Bush thinks he's going to unveil a rosy democracy in Iraq in this climate and with the region's history, he's more deluded than I thought.
Posted by drew on August 24, 2007 08:29 AMDoes anyone really believe that if the US were able to eradicate Al Qaeda that there would be no more Middle Eastern terroists?
Posted by jc on August 24, 2007 09:01 AMdrew,
We can't afford to get stuck on Iraq and you can't afford to get stuck on Bush.
I don't know what Bush thinks (Charles B probably does) but I doubt he's hoping for a rosy democracy at the point. Something mre like the UAE or even Egypt would be a step in the right direction.
Posted by James Jones on August 24, 2007 09:27 AMIraq has something like a parlimentary system. A democracy with equal votes for all adults,and maybe a 2 party structure may not be what they want.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 24, 2007 09:53 AMJonesy,
It WAS AND IS your buddy, Dubya the Dimwit (Bush) who assured us that the people of Iraq would welcome us with open arms and flowers; as well as also assuring us that we were bringing "democracy" to the area by invading it and overthrowing its then current government. That was what Bush "thought", when he got us into this mess, as he expressed himself.
Now, I certainly agree that you "don't know what Bush thinks" - or what anyone else thinks, for that matter; thinking not being one of your strong points, having long ago been abandoned for immagination - but, are you now giving up on your own hero? Must we now continue to throw away money, blood, and lives in a quagmire, just to achieve a sort of . . . kind of, . . . maybe like . . . something like . . . well, whatever?
Yeah! Right! WHATEVER! Just so long as we "stay the course", keep on keeping on, and . . . duh . . . well . . . uh . . . whatever. Oh! Yeah! Make "a step in the right direction". That's it!
You're more entertaining than Dubya any day. Bet you could replace Rove, if you applied for the job.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 24, 2007 09:58 AMGrouch,
Yes, you've told me before how Saddam's rule was a great benefit for Iraq and you were hoping they could find someone similar to resume the good old days of Baathist rule
But he's gone now Grouch so you'll have to learn to let that go.
Posted by James Jones on August 24, 2007 10:04 AMJonesy,
That imagination of yours is working overtime again. As is your inability to ever quote anyone correctly, if you can falsify their presentation.
I have pointed out - and will again -- that Bush Senior had the political savvy, to recognize that attempting to overthroe Saddam was equivalent to breaking open a hornet's nest; and, he did not try.
I have also pointed out, that the Bush brat is too stupid to consult with his Dad on the matter, even now; when, with Saddam gone, the "hornet's nest" is causing us to lose money, blood, and lives, trying to somehow "undo" his (Bush brat's) stupidity of invading Iraq in the first place.
I have also pointed out that Saddam's Baathist regime did manage to keep the area relatively stable, and minimize the centuries old internal religious civil war; as well as doing a reasonable job of keeping Al Qaida out.
Whether or not all that was of "a great benefit" to Iraq has never been a consideration of any of my postings; and neither has the idea that I "hoped they could find someone similar to resume the good old days of Baathist rule".
I have also said it before, Jonesy: Your are a constant fantasist, a whiz of a whiz, and a congenital pathological liar. And a poor liar at that; since you never seem to be able to construct your lies on even the slenderest thread of fact or reality to give them an even half-way passable simile of plausability.
But, you are fun; and you do give everyone a good belly laugh every day. Too bad the days of slapstick vaudville are past and done with. You would have been a hit on the borschst circuit.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 24, 2007 12:46 PMI can just see these forums as a Hollywood movie where a terribly handsome young man ("James Jones") and a perfectly gorgeous young woman ("Sharon B.") "meet cute" in some manner: maybe she, momentarily distracted by something, puts her laundry in his machine at the laundromat, or something adorable like that. There are instant sparks, neither one suspecting that they've been writing scathingly insulting posts to each other on their local online newspaper opinion forum. "Sharon" gets romance advice from her dotty old mother ("Can I get an AMEN") and cynical little brother ("Old Grouch"), while "James Jones" is similarly supported by his old high school buddies ("Keith," "John II," "KW"--the latter two being secret lovers, but we don't find that out till toward the end). There's a comic subplot involving the Scary Neighbor ("an american"), whose basement one-room is decorated with Bible passages pasted onto the walls and furnished in Contemporary Firearm (an almost sexual obsession stemming from his grandma having given him a water pistol for his fourth birthday). I won't give away the ending.
In fact, I think I might write the screenplay myself, under the nom de plume--"Hans Christian Brando" is too obvious--Brian Stuckey.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on August 24, 2007 07:40 PMGeorge Orwell, call your office. You can add to your list of opposites ("war is peace," "ignorance is strength" and "freedom is slavery") a new one. It is the emerging plan of congressional Democrats, joined by at least one Democratic presidential candidate: "losing is winning." ...
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin ... says, "The military aspects of President Bush's new strategy in Iraq ... appear to have produced some credible and positive results." ...
[E]ven acknowledging progress on the ground is a far cry from a spokesperson for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said recently that Democratic leaders are "not willing to concede there are positive things to point to" in Iraq. ...
U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., voted against authorization for Bush to invade Iraq. But he told the Olympian newspaper that he is convinced the military needs more time in the region and that a hasty pullout would produce chaos that could only help Iran and damage U.S. security.
Baird, too, recently returned from a visit to the region, including Iraq.
Even Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who can't afford to be on the wrong side of victory no matter how far away it might seem, acknowledges the troop surge is producing results. So does Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin. ...
Yes, says Clinton, the surge is "working," but according to her, it is coming "too late" and so it's time to bring the troops home. If one suffers from terminal cancer and a last-ditch effort is made with experimental drugs to save the patient's life, would a responsible physician give up and declare the situation hopeless, even as the drugs show progress fighting the disease?
All of Iraq's political leaders are not on vacation. The Bush administration says Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other members of the elected government are negotiating a political settlement that would be acceptable to all sides. ...
Democrats at last appear to have a war strategy. It is to snatch victory from the jaws of victory, even after claiming lack of progress and forecasting defeat for at least the last three years. ...
Nice. I'd go see it---and then denounce it because it didn't follow the book.
Than I'd hate myself for being such an elitist.
Posted by Charles B on August 24, 2007 10:07 PMCharles B
I thought you and a few others would have some fun with my 9:51 post. This'll be my last post as I'm flying to Kentucky to see my daughter before I leave Tuesday. So, I thought I should shovel a last load of sh** into the barn for you folks to play with!
It's been enjoyable, Charles. As I told Old Grouch on another thread, I'll miss the camaraderie with some of you folks.
Enjoy yourselves...I do have satellite phone and internet while in the sandbox, sometimes. After I get settled in my new location I'll see if I can't drop in for a word or two now and then.
Posted by Trinity on August 25, 2007 12:18 AMOh, I forgot to tell you guys the title. How does "Yeah, But Clinton..." grab you?
Don't be a stranger, Trinity. I certainly don't live anywhere near the Rocky Mountain area myself.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on August 25, 2007 05:25 PMHaving confessed "I certainly don't live anywhere near the Rocky Mountain area myself," I hope that some of you will kindly be able to keep your "Thank God" to yourselves.
Hans Christian Brando:--
What part of the world do you live in? Trinity is going back to Iraq to work. Probably a little harder to jump on the net than for you.
Ken G
Posted by on August 25, 2007 06:11 PMExactly what sacrifice is James Jones making? He isn't even being taxed to pay for this war
Posted by It's True on August 25, 2007 09:31 PMOkay, Ken G., so Trinity is going to work in Iraq. Good for him. I'm sorry you seem to have taken offense on is behalf by my "Don't be a stranger," which simply means "Let's hear from you when you get the chance." Or do you think that every American who goes to Iraq might as well be forgotten because they're dead meat? (Is that how well the surge is working?) Personally, if I were going someplace dangerous, I'd rather hear "Don't be a stranger" than something like "See ya, don't want to be ya."
As for you, Ken G., you can be a stranger all you want.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on August 26, 2007 09:31 AMIt's True,
Thank you for the post. It's right out of the Book of Aesopian Word of Leftism (or BAWL as commonly known) where Chapter 4, "On Dissent." I will quote the text as follows:
One of the weakness of democratic society is the rather quaint notion of freedom of speech. The idea supposedly encourages dissent and the close examination of ideas.
Obviously, this is a dangerous idea that will cause a lot of unappiness among the Great Unwashed who are easily duped (See Chapter 1.) Until such time as Leftism gains dominion in the World (see Chapter 2), the inherent dangers of free speech must be countered.
The most effective tool available is to silence the unbeliever by a) ignoring the argument and b) attacking the personal character.
You will not be required to go to all the fuss and trouble of presenting The Word when you are able to simply discredit the dissenter. In fact history has shown that silencing the non-believers can be even more effective than than simply presenting the obvious self-evident truth of The Word.
This silencing is known as the Slur Technique and is widely used by Leftists with great success.
Implementation of the Slur Technique is somewhat problematic when nothing of the personal history of the target is known. Don't be discouraged.
This obstacle is easily overcome by appealing to the prejudices Leftists have worked so diligently to establish. For instance, if the heretic is identifiable as a Conservative (quite often this is the case), then simply accuse the non-believer of being rascist, self-involved, uncaring and/or greedy (see Appendic C - Table of Insults.)
In conclusion, when you enounter an argument that disdains Leftist dogma, and cannot think or a material response (this will also quite often be the case), the best response is the tried and true Slur Technique.
Note - Do not attempt to reconcile this reading with the "Virtue of Diversity" (Chapter 8.) These seeming contradictions are actually in harmony and the Word requires you to accept this teaching as one of the Mysteries of Faith (see Chapter 10).
Congratulations, you are a pitch-perfect Leftist.
Posted by James Jones on August 26, 2007 11:32 AMJonesy,
What in hell are you ranting and raving on about? Not that it matters all that mujch, since ranting and raving - along with filling up space with nonsense - are your real forte as the whiz of a whiz you are.
However, I looked all over the line of postings, and finally found the one-liner posted by "It's True". He asked a simple question; and he made a single simple observation. What got your panties all knotted up there?
If it be that you think someone is trying to "silence you" - a consumation otherwise devoutly to be wished . . . at least sometimes - his little squib certainly didn't provide anything even remotely sufficient to do that job - which is an impossiblity anyway, as fully demonstrated by your idiotically ridiculous reply.
So, aside from proving that you are still alive and full of hot air, what, if anything, was that last blather all about, anyway?
You know we want you to keep on keeping on, Jimmy boy. We all need our daily belly laugh; and you provide the best on the blog.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 26, 2007 04:18 PMJames Jones, your posts seem different. Is liquor involved?
Posted by Sharon B. on August 26, 2007 05:54 PMJimmy said ”One of the weakness of democratic society is the rather quaint notion of freedom of speech. The idea supposedly encourages dissent and the close examination of ideas.”
Yup, hence the need to have the President only attend public meetings that have been populated by only people who pass through the filters, and “freedom zones” are kept far away to avoid dissonance with “the message”.
Perish the thought that the sacred “message” might come into contact with dissent!
”The most effective tool available is to silence the unbeliever by a) ignoring the argument and b) attacking the personal character.” and
”… the Slur Technique and is widely used by Leftists with great success.”
You mean like the “swift-boat” business?
What would a bit of research show Jimmy, would these be a set of practices most used by the Right, or by the Left, or do you think it is practiced equally by both side?
Jimmy, I would love to know how far you would go before embarrassment overwhelmed you. Just how much more cognitive dissonance could you bear? - and whether in fact you have a limit at all.
I suspect that big chunks of your right cortex have already shut down, but it fascinates me that maybe you will eventually start showing real overt neurological deficits as you have to increasingly ignore dissonant information.
I bet you start showing little tremors on your left side, little eye twitches, and perhaps even some left visual-field neglect. So maybe you start bumping into things a bit more on the left.
Bango Skank
You miss the point which, coming from a man who might have written Appendix C, I have to assume disingenous. But just to keep the record straight-
The Swift Boat crowd took on Kerry immediately following his 1971 Congressional testimony that his colleagues in Viet Nam were war criminals who:
"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. "
This particluar group of veterans took offense at Kerry's slurs and challenged his veracity. Then went largely dormant until Kerry began his comand to become Commander-in-Chief in 2003.
Kerry's Presidential campaign reinvigorated the Swift Boaters who maintained that Kerry was unfit to serve as President based upon his alleged "willful distortion of the conduct" of American servicemen during that war, and his alleged "withholding and/or distortion of material facts" as to his own conduct during that war.
They openly made the same specific charges levelled decades ago which bore directly on Kerry's campaign claims.
The distinction between that activity and the Slur Technique described in BAWL is sefl-evident.
As to your assertion that the principle of Free Speech is violated when a politician, whether the President or a Senator from New York, uses stage craft to deliver a message is, well, silly.
The principle of Free Speech asserts that your right to speech may not be abridged by the State absent extraordinary circumstances (Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater) it has nothing to do with the manner in which anyone chooses to speak.
So you have two points: one fallacious example and one irrational simile.
Perhaps if you thought about these issues a bit more before posting you would be able to offer better arguments. You were probably just reacting angrily to your ox being gored - so to speak.
Finally, your own Slur Technique needs work in that is suffers from being simultaneoulsy verbose and aracane.
I'm not suggesting you adopt the Charles B. school of thought but somewhere between
You are an a**hole and
"I suspect that big chunks of your right cortex have already shut down, but it fascinates me that maybe you will eventually start showing real overt neurological deficits as you have to increasingly ignore dissonant information"
is probably where you want to be.
Just trying to help.
Posted by James Jones on August 27, 2007 08:47 AMJames - Good points to Bango. Probably they'll be lost in his quest to out insult everyone on this thread.
Bango seems a very troubled individual with some very deep seeded anger issues.
Obviously well educated and articualte, yet always bent on a quest to insult both this country and any citizen who dares to disagree with his perspective.
Why he wanted to come live in a country that chafes is arse so is beyond comprehension.
Posted by KW on August 27, 2007 09:11 AMJonesy,
Well, as to the matter of "silly", you have surely done your very best in giving example(s).
By the way, how does one "begin his COMAND to become Commander in Chief"?.
Are you suggesting that running for office is a matter of "comand" - which, by the way, is usually spelled with two (2) of the letter "m" to begin with - or that an election to office somehow confers a "comand" - even spelled correctly?
Oooops! Sorry. I forgot, that, for you, is just a "matter of semantics" up there in LaLa-Oz-Land; and we all should use our "imagination" in dealing with your works. (In the hope perhaps that we might find something there of at least elementary intelligence, maybe?)
Oh! What a whiz of a whiz you is!
Posted by Old Grouch on August 27, 2007 09:21 AMSharonB,
No, I always drink when I post.
Posted by James Jones on August 27, 2007 09:23 AMOld Grouch,
Thanks for point out the typo
"his comand to become Commander-in-Chief in 2003."
should read
"his qwest to become Commander-in-Chief in 2003."
Posted by James Jones on August 27, 2007 09:34 AMKW,
Generally agree except for well-educated and articulate.
Well-educated infers humility and rudimentary wisdom. Verbose downright contradicts articulate.
I think it's obvious why Bango would stay in the US. He requires an environment that practices a high degree of tolerance.
His posts are useful here in that the platitudes offer great targets for poking holes in Leftist dogma.
Posted by James Jones on August 27, 2007 09:41 AM"Well-educated infers humility"
So true JJ. As it is taught in the bible. I kinda forget that sometimes and after reading so many of Bango's posts I have to agree, humility is severely lacking.
But I too enjoy watching his frustration when all the world doesn't see things his way.
He can get down right nasty for someone who drinks tea.
Posted by KW on August 27, 2007 12:14 PMThe September 15 March on Washington will be led by Iraq war veterans and their families. Veterans from other conflicts will also join them in the very front ranks of the demonstration that will begin at noon at the White House and be followed by a march to Congress.
At the very moment that people from around the country are preparing to descend on Washington DC for a massive march for peace and impeachment, Alberto Gonzales announced today that he is joining Karl Rove in the mad dash to flee Bush's sinking ship.
Gonzales, like Rove, is under scrutiny for lying to Congress. Under direction from Bush and Cheney, Gonzales will be remembered in history as the infamous guardian and legal “justifier” for a regime of torture, massive secret spying of the American people and the suspension of Due Process and other cherished rights.
The crumbling of Bush’s inner circle is a sure sign that those who participated in the criminal acts of the administration are seeking to avoid the hard glare of a country that has turned against the Iraq war and the administration itself.
So what has James Jones sacrificed?
Posted by Curious on August 27, 2007 02:01 PMSacrifice, for the Bushites, is what YOU are supposed to do, NOT something to be expected from them. After all, they follow the Great Decider, whose motto is, "Let's you and him fight, while I rake in the (sp)oil."
Posted by Old Grouch on August 27, 2007 02:28 PMKW,
Maybe tea is the problem.
This may be problem a sociable pint once in a while would remedy.
Posted by James Jones on August 27, 2007 03:39 PM
However, I looked all over the line of postings, and finally found the one-liner posted by "It's True". He asked a simple question; and he made a single simple observation.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 26, 2007 04:18 PM
Sacrifice, for the Bushites, is what YOU are supposed to do, NOT something to be expected from them.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 27, 2007 02:28 PM
And then there were two.
Posted by James Jones on August 27, 2007 03:48 PMIt's just something to be tolerated I guess James.
I'm getting outa here and get me one of those sociable pints before the boss expects more work.
See ya tomorrow.
Posted by KW on August 27, 2007 04:54 PMToo precious for words!
Watching the mutual adoration between KW and Jimmy brought to mind a Dutch phrase, which loosely translated amounts to “platting penises”. I would be cautious about such backslapping since it is likely to lead to exacerbating error and bias.
As expected, Jimmy leaps to the defense of the indefensible and comes up with a gargoyle of a rationalization. Notable is the avoidance of answering the basic question as to whether he believes the “Left” engages in slur and innuendo more than or to the same degree as the “Right”. I suggest you tackle that problem Jimbo, that way lies enlightenment.
” The principle of Free Speech asserts that your right to speech may not ….”
Oh get off it Jimbo, are you really going to claim that “free speech” is unfettered if people can voice an opinion but cannot be heard because of where they are forced to be located? It’s a silly claim on its face. Fencing protesters off in little pens that are nowhere near the intended recipient is no form of freedom of speech. Granted it is a sort of black irony, and a nice “gotcha”.
” your own Slur Technique needs work in that is suffers from being simultaneoulsy verbose and aracane.”
I notice a bit of stutter and some interesting language errors there Jimbo, are you drunk or is that a neurological problem manifesting itself?
It’s blokes like you that make me wonder if Conservatism isn’t perhaps a real neurosis.
Early aging of the right cerebral cortex maybe, I would love to bung you into an fmri and see what’s ticking or not, as the case may be. Care to volunteer?
” Well-educated infers humility and rudimentary wisdom. Verbose downright contradicts articulate.”
Nah, in this case “verbose” indicates “signal redundancy”, a technique used to increase the probability of message survival. Your PC does it all the time, and so does your chosen political party.
Where you get education equating to humility I cannot guess, but I suspect you don’t mix much with the well educated. Education drives insults to become more refined and subtle.
Not to be outdone, KW also had something to say :
” So true JJ. As it is taught in the bible. I kinda forget that sometimes and after reading so many of Bango's posts I have to agree, humility is severely lacking.”
You confuse “anger” and “aggression”, and “servile” with “humble”.
I am unfortunately very aggressive in style, but I am not angry, and while I am plenty humble, I don’t do servility. It’s all about a wide range of emotional capacity KW, most humans can manage it with ease. Dogma tends to squash that.
” But I too enjoy watching his frustration when all the world doesn't see things his way.”
I think you need some adjustment on that nervous system KW, you are misreading emotional states. I find you tedious, but not frustrating. On the whole you and Jimbo fascinate me.
” He can get down right nasty for someone who drinks tea.”
Yeah, sorry about that. Would love to be the empathetic type, but sadly I lack the circuitry for that. By the way, the Brits are right up there with the Nazis for brutality, just in a very genteel and evasive sort of way. You should see the record on concentration camps.
btw KW, do you drink milk?
Posted by Bango Skank on August 27, 2007 05:20 PMJJ, I hoped to catch up with you ever since you said you stopped going to the movies in the 50`s.
How can you have a conversation in today's America since you have missed so many of the cultural touchstones?
What do you do when someone says you are a "Stepford Republican"?
Or answer "what we have here is a failure to communicate.?
Boil your bunny, take your hands off me you damn dirty ape, I can see dead people.
How can you converse without these quotables?
Posted by Sharon B. on August 27, 2007 05:41 PMBango Skank,
Pulling out the penis references so soon? Desperate times - desperate measures.
"Notable is the avoidance of answering the basic question as to whether he believes the “Left” engages in slur and innuendo more than or to the same degree as the “Right”. "
Well let's see. You produced one, and presumably your best, example and I demonstrated not only that it was false but that the charge itself was a slur.
Next Case.
"Oh get off it Jimbo, are you really going to claim that “free speech” is unfettered if people can voice an opinion but cannot be heard because of where they are forced to be located?"
Yes, in fact the point is obvious. Right after the Slur Technique one of common tactics of the Leftist is the Din Technique. Here's how it works:
Barge into an event where one of the heretics is speaking and raise a Mighty Din, chaos will ensue that will make it impossible for the non-believer to be heard.
Antidote - confine then someplace far away where the shouting will not interfere with the planned proceedings of civilized people.
So you see fettering these voices promotes free speech.
"Nah, in this case “verbose” indicates “signal redundancy”, "
Won't do - I didn't charge you with redundancy. I said you were verbose and gave an example. Changing the charge to something you're not guilty of is not an allowable defense on this page.
All for now. I'll let KW deal with the rest if he's a mind to.
One thing though: this claim that you're not servile I especially enjoyed. You are one of the great, flaming sycophants on this page.
Jimmy said ” You produced one, and presumably your best, example and I demonstrated not only that it was false but that the charge itself was a slur.”
The concept is that an illustration serves to limn an article for discussion.
So what I am asking you to do is to answer whether you think this is a “Leftist” mechanism exclusively, or where the balance rests. The example served to indicate the kind of thing to which I was referring.
I am still waiting to see if you will answer this or hide – my money is on you hiding, because I don’t think you are sincere about discussion.
”… fettering these voices promotes free speech”
You evidently don’t see the contradiction in terms here.
This brings us back to the question of just how far you can go before dissonance starts having real physical effects on you. I think it already has, and I suspect that I know what it is doing to your cognitive systems. I think your right cerebral cortex has partially shut down already, and as I said, there may be other interesting symptoms like little eye twitches and left-field neglect.
”… I didn't charge you with redundancy …”
Perhaps the term is one with which you are unfamiliar.
Redundancy in this sense is not a pejorative term or an accusation, it is simply a statement that elements of a concept are repeated in order to provide message integrity.
” You are one of the great, flaming sycophants on this page.”
To what or whom do you think I am being a sycophant?
Tell me whom or what you think I serve.
Bango Skank,
I will walk you through the logic once more since you are such a humble, and yet aggressive, Great Thinker.
"The concept is that an illustration serves to limn an article for discussion."
You example failed to limn the article for discussion because it was not an accurate illustration. You do, however, expect me to research the history of the uses of The Slur and present my findings for your Judgement.
It doesn't work that way Your Humbleness. I only research topics that interest me and make corrections as required. If you have a case to make, and you think you can do better then your first attempt, then bring it forward.
"You evidently don’t see the contradiction in terms here (fettered and free)."
This really is not that complicated. You have freedom of speech but not the freedom to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. That is because yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater hinders free speech. Hence, when you are forbidden to yell "Fire" it is not correct to say that free speech is fettered. It is accurate to to say that the fettering secures an environment where free speech can be exercised.
Now, if you take that example and apply it to cretins screaming at a political rally to create chaos and ensure that the voice of the oppostion will not be heard, the logic of the position should start to come together for you.
"Perhaps the term (redundancy) is one with which you are unfamiliar."
No I am familiar with the term and I have never characterized your posts as being redundant. You just made that up.
On the other hand, I have characterized your posts as verbose and provided examples. Your attempt to deflect the truth by changing the subject is pretty lame even for the usual Leftist obfuscation.
"To what or whom do you think I am being a sycophant?
Tell me whom or what you think I serve."
The initial circumsatnce involved an individual signing her posts variously as Queen Gorgo, Repugnants are Liars, James Jones is a Liar (from memory but probably pretty close) and Anon in the same thread.
She presented herself with these various fake names offering different anecdotal experiences under the guise of being different people, false support of her own postions taken other names and so on.
This fraud was revealed when the RMN began inserting the true identity in the text of the post and the jig, as they say, was up.
You came to the defense of this deceit which you described as a legitimate practice.
More recently,
An anti-war article was produced here which Wes represented as having been authored "by sergeants from the 82nd Airborne"
I responded by pointing out that these sergeants were also members of something called "Veterans Against Iraq War" and charged the Wes with propagandizing by failing to identify the VAIW.
You followed with
So evidently a conjunctive problem for JJ to solve.
What does he do if the authors are both from the 82nd and members of the VAIW?
Simple, Jimmy deals with cognitive dissonance by simply dropping one of the facts and ignoring it.
Brilliant strategy, just sometimes makes him walk into large brick structures and on occasion wipe his bum instead of his mouth after dinner - but then nobody is perfect, are they?
Posted by Bango Skank on August 22, 2007 11:59 PM
and I replied
The sub-set has specific ideas and goals which may, or may not comport with the ideas and goals of the larger group. In this case the probably don't. It is likely that the views of the sub-set represent the views of a minority of the larger group e.g., most members fo the 82nd do not belong to the VAIW.
So these are not two, separate but indistinguishable groups. They are two separate, distinguishable groups.
Consequently, a false impression is created when the authors are identified with the larger group but not identifed as members of the samller group.
Had Wes been interested in candor, he would have identifed the authors as members of VAIW.
Wes is not interested in candor. He is a propagandist. That's why he identified the authors solely as members of the 82nd.
You rush to the defense of cretins when you think it offers you the opportunity to insult me because I disagree with you on a host of issues.
In your efforts at revenge, you set the obvious truth aside in the pursuit of falsehood. And in doing so become just another sycophant on this page.
You offered no response.
What do you serve? The Left.
Who do you serve? Anyone who preaches Leftist shibboleths.
You display no allegiance to the truth or integrity. Your thinking is as dogmatic as the most fundamenatlist, Bible-thumper that you regularly invent as your adversary on this page.
Posted by James Jones on August 27, 2007 10:03 PMSharon B,
How can you converse without these quotables?
Posted by Sharon B. on August 27, 2007 05:41 PM
Not a problem. I just ask my barber and he tells me about the movie. He goes all the time.
Posted by James Jones on August 27, 2007 10:08 PMJimmy said ” You example failed to limn the article for discussion because it was not an accurate illustration”
Then ignore it or reject it, and simply move on and answer the question.
It’s a cheap dodge to use what you see as a disagreeable illustration as an exit hatch to avoid answering what was really the salient point of a discussion.
” No I am familiar with the term and I have never characterized your posts as being redundant.”
er, no, I did.
There was no accusation that you had said so.
As I said, my posts are verbose mainly because of redundancy.
” You rush to the defense of cretins when you think it offers you the opportunity to insult me because I disagree with you on a host of issues. “
Half right I would say.
I do enjoy the opportunity to insult you, somewhat because it pleases me to do so, but mainly because it serves a purpose.
We certainly do disagree on a host of issues, but we have yet to discover most of them. Mainly, I think, because you are so tightly doctrinaire and employ avoidance to hide your actual positions. Ink and smoke for much of it.
Or maybe you think it would be pearls before swine.
” You display no allegiance to the truth or integrity. Your thinking is as dogmatic as the most fundamenatlist, Bible-thumper that you regularly invent as your adversary on this page.”
Curious accusation.
I see you as that bible-thumping fundamentalist, and one that would employ any tactic to avoid defeat, and moreover somebody who would eagerly sacrifice truth to conformity and protection of the Conservative worldview.
Bango Skank,
I will answer your question and give it the attention it desrves.
Leftists engage in the Slur Technique routinely because they are intellectually fatigued and morally bankrupt. The answer is as general as the question is shallow.
Fettering Free Speech
I se you have moved on with that one. You must have learned something. I call that progress of a sort.
Redundant vs. Verbose
Finally, your own Slur Technique needs work in that is suffers from being simultaneoulsy verbose and aracane.
I'm not suggesting you adopt the Charles B. school of thought but somewhere between
You are an a**hole and
"I suspect that big chunks of your right cortex have already shut down, but it fascinates me that maybe you will eventually start showing real overt neurological deficits as you have to increasingly ignore dissonant information"
is probably where you want to be.
Just trying to help.
Posted by James Jones on August 27, 2007 08:47 AM
I am redundant. You are verbose.
Bango the Sycophant
You insult those who disagree with you to serve some higher purpose. But you neglected to describe that higher purpose.
Snce it pleases you to imagine yourself casting pearls before swine then your efforts have no purpose beyond feeding your ego.
In truth, there is nothing instructive in false examples and specious reasoing which, beyond silly questions and the verbose insult, is all you have to put on offer.
Curious charge? That's because you haven't thought through any topic sufficiently to induce a challenge to your prejudices.
You see here's what I mean about going to the penis references too early. When you peak that soon you become a spent force left with nothing beyond empty arrogance as the thread winds on.
Posted by James Jones on August 28, 2007 06:33 AMBango Skank,
Carl Jung calls it, "Projection". All the "bad", or "negative", things he finds within himself - and his own imagination - must be cast out upon anyone who disagrees with him, or forces him to look at that which he refuses to assimilate as being part of himself.
Good for comic relief, and a lot of belly laughs over time, but really not worth all that much effort to attempt to dialogue, or debate, with. He's way, way, way, far away from any ability to even perceive, much less assimilate, his own contradictions and inconsistencies. And, while the blog certainly provides a place from which the rest of the readers and writers can evaluate his nonsense productions for what they are, only concentrated therapy would ever manage to bring about a resolution to the matter.
But it is fun. And many of us do enjoy the exchanges, since they do provide good evidence of just how unreasonable, illogical - and at root unsound and troublesome - the positions he supports with the most fervor really are.
Or, as might be something of a theme here: Oh! What a whiz of a whiz he is! (Except he really believes he's "down to earth" and actually "living back in Kansas".)
Posted by Old Grouch on August 28, 2007 07:21 AMJudging from these posts I am guessing that K-Duh and James Jones have sacrificed their sanity. Maybe their sense of sanity and integrity. "Stand Tall", "hang tough" this is all a bunch of senseless rhetoric when you aren't actually doing anything.
Posted by It's True on August 28, 2007 07:57 AMGood exchange James Jones. I scan past most of Bango scribes anymore. Usually it's just the same old harping on how stupid we are and how brilliant he is. But you made me at least take a look at what he wrote
Needless to say, more of the same. That is one troubled individual. Somedays I don't mind playing the shrink but most of the time I'd prefer to sit and watch and avoid the tirade sessions.
His mental health may be lost but I'd prefer to retain mine, or at least what's left of it.
Bango - BTW, you honored me with a cute knick name awhile back that I carry proud as a badge of honor. What was it again? Green puking lawn gnome or something like that? Help me remember, would ya?
Thanks,
It's fun for a while but eventually grows tedious. I think that's where we are now on this thread.
You and I will have to find something to argue about on another thread. The role of the State in the definition of marriage may be a good topic.
Unlike the Leftists that post here, I enjoy having my views challenged. I think their reflexive disdain of dissent is based on the unacknowleged admission that if the individual with an opposing view is respected, then the argument brought forward must be respected.
And if they have to respect the dissenting argument, it follows that they will have to closely examine their own postions. That's not going to happen.
So the heretic will be treated to insults limited only to the extent of their imagination and vocabulary. Which admittedly is a pretty severe limitation in most cases. Good manners forbids naming names.
But honest, respectful discourse in never necessary as long as they have BAWL to fall back on with the Slur and Din Techniques handy.
See you around.
Posted by James Jones on August 28, 2007 12:22 PMWow!