Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Black Friday Political Thread
It's the biggest shopping day of the year, if not one of the bigger blogging days. If you're still thinking about gifts, how about a 3-CD history of America through cover songs, edited by Janet Reno? (Sadly, she passed on AC/DC's "Burnin' Alive.")
Unconvincing quote of the week...
"Hell, yeah, I'm confrontational." - John Edwards to a voter in Iowa, on Tuesday.
The week in brief...
- New Hampshire locked in its primary date: January 8, 2008. Michigan Democrats (now set for January 15) may still throw a tantrum, but New Hampshire is a go, and reason will be covering the primary from the ground at the start of next year.
- The Supreme Court took up the D.C. gun ban.
Too smart to be president? The Politico's Jonathan Martin has a thumbsucker about the state of the Fred Thompson campaign. According to most of his sources, the campaign missed its opening and is now, at best, an insurgent campaign that could get lucky, or at worst, a Hindenburg filled with screaming widows. Martin, however, argues that Thompson is finding his footing by talking policy.
[The National Right to Life endorsement] was followed by two recent policy roll-outs — on Social Security and the military — that have generally won warm reviews. Thompson’s Social Security outline was praised by both the National Review and The Washington Post editorial page. It’s in talking about substance and diving headlong into policy minutia that Thompson is plainly most happy — and Thompson seeming happy while campaigning has not happened much.
This leads me to wonder if I'd underestimated Thompson. For starters, the stupidest rationales for his campaign were not Thompson's own. They came from his backers, salivating over his old pick-up truck and his "commanding voice," or fantasizing about him towering over Hillary Clinton (and her "stubby little legs"). But I don't think I was unfair. Thompson didn't enter this race because it was lacking a federalist. He entered it because conservatives wanted a Reaganesque figure who could inspire them and unite their factions.
One troublesome piece of evidence: Fred's online fan club seems to be shrinking. In the summer, I thought that the excitement and momentum for the Thompson campaign online was strangling the other conservative campaigns—Brownback, Tommy Thompson, et al—in their cribs. He probably did kill those campaigns off a bit sooner, but the momentum's slackened. A grassroots "moneybomb" scheduled for 11/21, the day before Thanksgiving, looks to have been a bust. He received only 82 pledges for $100 apiece, so it's likely he raised less than $100,000.
Ron Paul rising. Earlier this week Mike Huckabee told reporters he was the only presidential candidate who's seen a steady surge of support. Not true: Ron Paul has decisively broken from the 1 percent/margin of error ghetto into, at the very least, spoiler status. RealClearPolitics still doesn't include Paul in all of the averages, but 4.5 percent in Iowa, 6.8 percent in New Hampshire, and 7.3 percent in Nevada. The latest South Carolina poll puts Paul at 8 percent. David Bergland, the (disastrous) 1984 Libertarian Party candidate for president, is overjoyed.
There is no one, true path to liberty. The Ron Paul campaign, the internet, and the millions of people involved in both prove it every day. The old, political establishment is under siege. The power-mad goons are surrounded by heroic lovers of freedom whose numbers will continue to increase exponentially. I’m glad I have lived long enough to see it.
It's a little surprising, how little sting the "nazi" and "9/11 truther" attacks are hurting Paul. Maybe they're an internet phenomenon with no purchase in the real world. You know, like the Paul campaign used to be.
Below the fold...
- Debi Ghate wishes you an Ayn Rand Thanksgiving.
- Bruce Falconer explains the rise of Help Save Manassas, the anti-immigration powerhouse in suburban DC.
- Ezra Klein advocates for a Joe Biden vice presidency. Some people call this the "silly season."
- Yes, Kerry Howley conclusively demolished all that whining about Hillary Clinton "playing the gender card." Still... Clinton's caucus page for women is called "You Go Girl." She can't be playing cards—all that winking gives her hand away.
This week's installment of Politics 'n' Prog is a hit by The
Nice that encapsulates the meaning of the holiday.
PantsFan|11.23.07 @ 5:50PM|#
Don't forget it was buy nothing day today as well.
http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/bnd/
Edward|11.23.07 @ 6:53PM|#
Through the 90s, Ron Paul was also a regular on the far-right talk circuit. He spoke to Texas secessionists in 1995 on the "once and future Republic of Texas"; has appeared on a radio program affiliated with the Council of Conservative Citizens; and is a frequent speaker at John Birch Society functions -- the group has given him a perfect 100 in its legislative rankings. These days, those who monitor CCC, David Duke, and Stormfront say they can't get enough of him. They know he's one of their own.
rho|11.23.07 @ 7:05PM|#
Through the 80s and 90s I pimped Edward's mom. She was a solid hooker who never chiseled; she was always available for the adventuresome johns, even on holidays; and she once saved a kitten trapped in a tree with her prehensile trunk ass.
edna|11.23.07 @ 7:06PM|#
eddy, it's a conspiracy. the paulites are just waiting until after the election to break out their hoods and nooses.
|11.23.07 @ 7:12PM|#
With apologies to Ernest Lawrence Thayer
The outlook wasn't brilliant for the student march that
night;
The quads were filled with rent-a-pigs and not a picket sign in
sight;
With Cooney busted for possession, and Barrows, the riot
laws;
A sickly silence fell upon the supporters of The Cause.
A straggling few got up to go, in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which "springs eternal in the human
breast;"
They thought, If only Trollin' Edward could be rallying that
mob,
We'd put up even money now, with Edward at the quads.
But Flynn preceded Edward, as did also Jimmy Blake,
And the former was a no-good and the latter was a fake;
Forlorn, that stricken multitude discouraged by the odds,
For there seemed but little chance of Edward's getting to the
quads.
But Flynn let fly a bottle, to the wonderment of all,
And Blake, the much despised, set a bomb off in the hall,
And when the dust had lifted and men saw what had occurred,
Jimmy beaned the Dean of Students, while the bombed out library
burned.
Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty
yell,
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell,
A Harley roared up from the street, and was tearing up the
sod,
And Edward, Trollin' Edward, was advancing through the quads.
There was ease in Edward's manner as he wheeled into his
place;
There was pride in Edward's bearing and a smile on Edward's
face,
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly gave a nod,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt `twas Trollin' Edward at the
quads.
Ten thousand eyes were on him as he gunned the throttle loud;
Five thousand tongues applauded as he signaled to the crowd.
And while the nervous rent-a-pigs grabbed the night sticks from
their hips,
Defiance gleamed in Edward's eye, a sneer curled Edward's
lip.
And now a can of tear gas came hurtling through the air,
And Edward stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there,
Close by the haughty Edward, the can unheeded sped --
"That ain't my style," said Edward. "Break it up!" the coppers
said.
From the streets, black with people, there went up a muffled
roar,
Like the beating of the storm waves on a stern and distant
shore.
"Kill them; kill the pigs!" shouted someone from the mob;--
And Edward guns his engine, and wipes-out on the lawn.
With a fist of protest shaking, Edward's visage shone;
He jumped back on his Harley; he bade the march go on;
The Harley takes off through the quads, 'till it hits a vicious
bump;
And Edward sails through the air, landing smack upon his
rump.
"Fascists!" he screeched, "Capitalist, Imperialist, Racist, Sexist
pigs!"
"If I must I'll ride a tricycle, but we'll have this march - you
dig?"
They saw his face grow stern and cold; they saw his muscles
strain,
And they knew that Trollin' Edward wouldn't lose that bike
again!
The sneer is gone from Edward's lip; his teeth are clenched in
hate;
He sniffs with cruel derision as he lets go of the brake.
And now he throws it into first, the clutch he now he lets
go,
And now the air is shattered as the bike takes off - alone.
Oh! somewhere there's a campus town where they drum and chant all
night.
They protest for the rain forest, and demand the caribou's
rights.
And somewhere bongs are being passed, and somewhere radicals
shout;
But there is no joy at Old State U -- Trollin' Edward has Wiped
Out!
|11.23.07 @ 7:16PM|#
Don't forget it was buy nothing day today as
well.
Whoops. A case of Double Bastard, some Great Divide Fresh Hop, Port
High Tide, Assorted Dogfish Head six packs.... But since it's all
food, hopefully I get a pass from the Adbuster folks.
iih|11.23.07 @ 7:25PM|#
I was starting to worry about this week's weekend thread. We
Reasonoids got ripped off twice in the last three weeks (or was it
two weeks?).
If you want to laugh out loud, you may not have seen this. (Edward: You may not
want to watch this.)
And don't know if you have been to Rudy's Reading
List website.
Also, in case you have not heard: Krugman attacks Paul here on Paul's nay vote on SOX and gets
debunked in the commentary. Related to SOX and Paul's no vote,
see:
- Ron Paul's statement on his vote against
SOX.
- "Ron Paul vs. SOX" by Jennifer Haman
toddb|11.23.07 @ 7:26PM|#
Wow...thought someone was beating my cat to death with an accordion...then realized that I had accidentally clicked play on this weeks politics and prog...
Edward|11.23.07 @ 7:30PM|#
Paul at 8% in South Carolina?
South Carolina has no libertarians so it must be the Stromfront/KKK
voting bloc.
Did Ron Paul just release his "nigger policy" paper?
|11.23.07 @ 7:32PM|#
From the Save Manassas article:
This growth has demanded new houses, shopping malls, parking
lots, gas stations, and roads. Construction projects have required
cheap labor
All created by and staffed by you know who.
So it comes down to "Work here, especially if you are willing to
work cheap. Then get the hell out and live somewhere else".
|11.23.07 @ 7:43PM|#
I generally believe in free speech 99% of the time, but when a person proves himself to be little more than an obnoxious cutter/paster (namely, "edward), I believe he deserves the ban hammer. Do I have anyone who supports my position in regards to "edward"?
|11.23.07 @ 7:43PM|#
Edward,
SC governor Mark Sanford is a pretty libertarian guy, and has
spoken highly of Dr. Paul. Do you have anything besides your own
prejudice to back up your claim that there are no libertarians in
SC?
iih|11.23.07 @ 7:45PM|#
Do I have anyone who supports my position in regards to
"edward"?
I do.
crimething and everyone else, here is a challenge: LETS NOT
RESPOND TO EDWARD AT ALL... AT ALL... AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS
Otherwise the thread will be dead boring and stupid as what happens
when Edward joins in. Dondero, may be. Edward, no!
iih|11.23.07 @ 7:46PM|#
I vouch not to respond to any of Edward's comments. Any one would second that?
|11.23.07 @ 7:52PM|#
iih, it's a good idea, but it never works. Someone always responds. And, correcting those who respond merely adds to the troll's delight.
iih|11.23.07 @ 8:00PM|#
crimethink- Well copy the above and have it ready to be pasted every couple of hours or so.
Elemenope|11.23.07 @ 8:06PM|#
Ignoring trolls on a non-modded system like this is not
particularly effective. Even if we all ignored him (and I don't
think that's the best way, and so I don't ignore him)--but even if
we did--a newcomer to the site will wonder why amidst the Paulistas
and the pseudoanachists there seems to be this guy posting fairly
contrary arguments that nobody else seems to be able to see...it's
confusing at best and likely to, well, provoke a response from
them. Or at least a query.
Re: "Republic of Texas"...I've been all about Texas seceding from
the Union and reliving its good old days for a long time now.
Just a question, though, Edward. Why does it matter why people
support Ron Paul? You harp about the whole "racists like him"
thing...a lot of racists liked Ronald Reagan, too, and I don't
think that fact says much about Reagan. We've also had racists in
the White House (e.g. Wilson, T. Roosevelt) who, for better or
worse, had a legacy as president basically unrelated to race.
Nothing about Ron Paul's platform or his legislative history
suggests an intent to institutionalize racism in any way. So, why
does it matter?
rho|11.23.07 @ 8:08PM|#
Edward is fun, like one of those punchy clowns. Enjoy it.
(I don't think it's really Edward anyway. I think it's a clever
troll riding Edward's stubby coattails.)
squarooticus|11.23.07 @ 8:10PM|#
Karl, where did you get the Double Bastard? The two distributors I go to (Halftime in Poughkeepsie, NY and Vinnin Sq. Liquors in Swampscott, MA) don't have it in yet and don't have a clue when it's supposed to arrive. I've bought it at both places in the past, which is making me worried that I won't be able to snag any this year.
|11.23.07 @ 8:12PM|#
If you're still thinking about gifts, how about a 3-CD
history of America through cover songs, edited by Janet Reno?
(Sadly, she passed on AC/DC's "Burnin' Alive.")
Dude, that's just mean. People just need to Waco and smell the
coffee.
|11.23.07 @ 8:30PM|#
A digression from the all politics is local desk:
This is a question for prolefeed or anyone else who has an insight
on the Hawaiian Republican party.
Do you know who Scott R. Hadley is? And does he really speak for
the "Hawaii Republican Party" as was his byline in a bizarre letter
to the editor that appeared in the Nov 14 ed of local
alt-weekly?
I can't link to it because The Honolulu Weekly does not publish
hardly any of its content on-line, but a
another letter from him here in the Star-Bulletin contains some
of the same stuff as his most recent letter. But while the S-B
letter sounds reasonable, the Weekly letter went off into the delta
quadrant with rants against Lingle, the Democrats, and just about
every other political, cultural, and social power base in the
islands. And the weekly letter signs off with a plug for Duke Aiona
for Gov in the next election and a byline that one would infer he
is speaking for the Hawaiian Republican Party.
Anyone know what the heck is going on?
|11.23.07 @ 8:48PM|#
Unconvincing quote of the week...
"Hell, yeah, I'm confrontational." - John Edwards to a voter in Iowa, on Tuesday.
To be fair, he's won a metric ass-ton of money for his clients (or
prevented them from losing the same). You don't get to be a winning
trial lawyer by being conciliatory.
|11.23.07 @ 8:55PM|#
David Bergland, the (disastrous) 1984 Libertarian
Party
Well, I grant you that during this election I was voting for
Transformers over Go-Bots, but again charity would dictate that
there should be a discernible difference between the legacy left by
Mr. Bergland and any other Libertarian candidate to characterize
him as a 'disaster'.
|11.23.07 @ 9:16PM|#
Ignoring trolls on a non-modded system like this
well, somewhat modded. i managed to get banned under a different id
back in the tim era.
TLB|11.23.07 @ 9:29PM|#
Wow.
1. The linked AynRand essay is even more far gone than the other
similar one:
aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10469&news_iv_ctrl=1021
2. Reason's got the MoJo! (Trivia question: which far-left
groups/pubs has Reason linked to approvingly and unquestioningly?)
It's a lightweight article, and I tend to doubt the meeting
described. Especially since it seems like the opposite number to
the one described in the first update here:
tinyurl.com/ypgkbw
I note also that even the WaPo was forced to admit "certain
downsides" of HSM's opponents:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601188.html
3. Here's yet another in
the long line of privacy sapping proposals that Reason has ignored
(for one odd reason or other).
4. Here's a new proposal that could help give Ron Paul's policies a
fair hearing (and show the flaws in his opponents' policies):
youtube.com/watch?v=xA8Kgn_48t0
5. As for the song itself, I don't recall NeilDiamond advocating
for massive PoliticalCorruption or giving PoliticalPower inside the
U.S. to foreign governments, so perhaps he won't make a good
libertarian spokesman.
6. As for the performance of the song, all those seeking antidotes
for that and other prog-related symptons can watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=_FIrLSsTRFk
iih|11.23.07 @ 9:38PM|#
crimethink- Ah I see. It took my a while to realize that you're responding to me! (or at least I think so)
|11.23.07 @ 9:42PM|#
Tim's power began to wane after he "outed" one of my aliases. The moral of the story is, DON'T FUCK WITH CRIMETHINK.
|11.23.07 @ 9:47PM|#
TLB,
Don't look now but
this story about an IllegalHero is making the rounds right
now.
iih|11.23.07 @ 9:49PM|#
crimething-
Tell me what you had to do so that no one DFWC? I called the
publisher of the blog once to take off a comment with an email that
would have "outed" my alias too. They were good. May be that was
one of the consequences of DFWC.
paul|11.23.07 @ 9:50PM|#
Don't forget it was buy nothing day today as well.
http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/bnd/
I don't buy into that adbusters marketing hype.
Guy Montag|11.23.07 @ 10:09PM|#
Um, Dave, after the last TWO times you emplored(sp?) me not to take or post pictures fo you, you are not anybody to talk about shopping.
|11.23.07 @ 10:13PM|#
The Edwards quote is something. I think he has really, really
done quite a bit to build up the idea of himself as a really big
sissy, and surely the right has and will capitalize on it (the
worst was having his WIFE go on Harball to defend him from Ann
Coulter, he should have called Coulter a stupid b*tch ho and at
least looked like a man). I wonder if the man really is a big wuss
or if you just have to do that to win a Democratic primary (be all
touchy feely, like the old NPR SNL spoofs).
I wonder, if we could transport all the candidates (Dem and GOP)
from their prime and have them duke it out, who would be the
winner?
iih|11.23.07 @ 10:16PM|#
I wonder, if we could transport all the candidates (Dem and
GOP) from their prime and have them duke it out, who would be the
winner?
No question about it, Ron Paul will win. He will refuse to
intervene, while the others kill each other off by their
interventionist policy. The other guy remaining: Kucinich. At least his wife endorses Paul.
|11.23.07 @ 10:18PM|#
I'm guessing McCain...But I'll admit to massive and unexcusable ignorance considering the atheletic and/or military background of the candidates (which is what I would use to select the badasses from the wimps [of course this is for fun, I would not vote for someone just because they could kick tail {though it wouldn't hurt}). Anyone know a link to find such things out?
|11.23.07 @ 10:20PM|#
On a kinder note (I am Mr. Nice Guy) if we were to rank candidates by how effective they were in their chosen professions Edwards would come off quite good...Love him or hate him he would be the one you would want representing your case in court.
|11.23.07 @ 10:31PM|#
MNG,
Don't even go there. The hypothetical battle between LOTR and Star
Wars characters has been going on for 20 years now, I don't think
we'll come to a resolution any quicker.
|11.23.07 @ 10:37PM|#
Don't know if you guys have seen this, but it's your chance to "digg" the candidate of your choice. And gee, I wonder who the most dugg candidate is, by over 4,000 diggs over the second place dude (Obama).
Nolan|11.23.07 @ 11:35PM|#
eh, I guess it's OT, but on Thanksgiving, I went outside to my
car for more beer, and Dr Paul was riding his bike down our
street...I just said hello and happy thanksgiving.
gogo small towns!
|11.24.07 @ 12:04AM|#
The improving situation in Iraq: The Washington Post yesterday
ran a story about Iraqis returning to Iraq. Forty six thousand
iraqis returned last month. The inbound flights are booked; you
can't buy a seat. The security situation improves daily. I can't
find the link to the story, but that is no matter anyway because
those of you with open minds have already read it and the rest
won't.
Here is herr Krauthammer's take on the Iraq situation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201089.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR
iih|11.24.07 @ 12:06AM|#
wayne:
I haven't actually heard about it, but sure sounds like great
news.
Stay safe over there.
iih|11.24.07 @ 12:08AM|#
watne:
I am also curious, what do you think the best course of action now
is? Stay, completely go, or go with some substantial presence left
behind?
Also, given your experience, would you be kind enough to give some
feedback on my blog (click my name)?
|11.24.07 @ 12:22AM|#
Hi squarooticus - I'm in Tucson, AZ, so I can't help you with
distributors on the east coast. Double Bastard is released in late
October, early November of each year. I have a couple of bottles
from the last couple of years and am looking for a good excuse to
do a vertical. Fortunately, there are a fair number of places that
carry the Double around here, even so I've been known to make a
special trip out to stock up on some of the rarer releases - and
the restaurant is top notch. My local watering hole managed to get
a keg of Double this year but in general the supply has been a bit
thin - the fires interrupted production a bit. The last time I was
out east, the Stone selection was a bit slim, so I'm not sure how
much luck you will have - it's been out for a couple of weeks - if
your distributors don't even have a clue... You might be better off
scheduling a trip out to San Diego! I have around 1.5 cases right
now - I plan on cellaring about 6 bottles, but if you really can't
get any out there, drop me a line and maybe I can 'drop' a bottle
in the mail - putridmeat@comcast.net
-Karl
|11.24.07 @ 12:23AM|#
well, somewhat modded. i managed to get banned under a
different id back in the tim era.
What?? Could edna be yet another alias of of the enigmatic Gary
Gunnels?
Who else was banned during Tim's reign... seems I remember Jennifer
getting (albeit temporarily) booted for wishing some kind of
violence on someone or something... but she's been around the whole
time... so, who else?
Oh, now that I think of it, I vaguely remember from around that
time someone asking "whatever happened to so-and-so" and someone
else said the person had been banned and there ensued some
discussion and general surprise that people had actually been
banned from commenting... but I can't remember who it was now...
Anyone else remember who all was banned back then?
|11.24.07 @ 12:30AM|#
The last time I was out east, the Stone selection was a bit
slim, so I'm not sure how much luck you will have - it's been out
for a couple of weeks - if your distributors don't even have a
clue... You might be better off scheduling a trip out to San
Diego!
Indeed. It is much easier to get out here on the left-coast (Oregon
for me) than when I was back there. I'd offer to send you a bottle
or two but it looks like Karl has you covered. :)
iih|11.24.07 @ 12:32AM|#
Brian:
How do you know that someone who disappears is banned? If what you
are describing is not some sort of theory, do they do it by IP
addresses?
|11.24.07 @ 12:47AM|#
iih,
Yes, I believe they do it by IP address, so of course it wouldn't
be all that hard to get around if one really wants to (and GG came
back as a few different names after that). Oh, and we knew they
were banned because at least one of the banned people emailed some
other frequent commenters to tell them about it. Tim also admitted
it at the time and explained his reasons for it, if I recall.
iih|11.24.07 @ 1:01AM|#
I am still curious, what could have been said that warrants "banning"? I have seen some pretty explicit stuff on here. Plus, isn't that against the motto "free minds and free markets"?
|11.24.07 @ 1:12AM|#
I generally believe in free speech 99% of the time, but when
a person proves himself to be little more than an obnoxious
cutter/paster (namely, "edward), I believe he deserves the ban
hammer. Do I have anyone who supports my position in regards to
"edward"?
Cesar -- is it so hard to just scroll past the edward comments
unread? Or is it a case of "I wish I knew how to quit reading you,
Edward"?
Free speech means tolerating the occasional douchebag. And Dan T.
managed to turn it around and every now and then post something
worthwhile, so there's always hope ...
P.S. I thought edward's "Stromfront" comment was a clever play on
words, albeit buried in another really annoying post.
|11.24.07 @ 1:22AM|#
1. The linked AynRand essay is even more far gone than the
other similar one:
aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10469&news_iv_ctrl=1021
Really? Pieces like that is what draws me to the philosophy of
Objectivism before I remind myself that it is a religion for the
insane and lonely high school students.
Don't forget it was buy nothing day today as well.
http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/bnd/
I read a message board on Adbusters for this year's Buy Nothing Day
where kids in Miami where making plans to protest Black Friday.
Their plan was to wander aimlessly around Walmart like zombies
(getit GETIT?) and "get posters of images of people out of work
(due to the power of walmart) and children in sweat shops and put
them on over our heads and then sit in front of one of the walmart
or best buy stores that everyone is waiting to go into ....just a
little something to jar them into thinking what they are
participating in"
|11.24.07 @ 1:28AM|#
This is a question for prolefeed or anyone else who has an
insight on the Hawaiian Republican party.
Do you know who Scott R. Hadley is? And does he really speak for
the "Hawaii Republican Party" as was his byline in a bizarre letter
to the editor that appeared in the Nov 14 ed of local
alt-weekly?
Kenny, the letter you linked to has the d00d saying he has lived in
Hawaii for all of three months, so he definitely isn't speaking for
anyone but himself.
And, as someone who has had around 200 or so letters to the editors
printed in the two "major" papers here (plus a few minor papers), I
can vouch that it's pretty easy for even the most tweaked-out,
untalented hacks to get printed here. ;)
There really isn't a Republican Party in Hawaii, anyway -- the tiny
contingent of ostensible Republican legislators has been hijacked
by the center-left Linglecrats. If I had to break the 76 seat
legislature down by actual political affiliation, rather than
stated party, it would be about like this:
5 Communists
4 Greens
25 Socialists
30 Democrats
4 Democrats posing as Republicans
4 Centrist Linglecrats posing as Republicans
3 Republicans
1 small-l right-libertarian
|11.24.07 @ 1:45AM|#
I am still curious, what could have been said that warrants
"banning"?
iih, as best I can tell, to get banned you have to either
persistently and gratuitously insult an actual Reason staffer, or
be a creepy threatening stalker who advocates physically harming
someone here in the meatworld, or post blatant commercial spam
without even attempting to be relevant to the discussion at hand.
Pretty much anything else goes -- the First Amendment is live and
kicking here. I'm amazed at the stuff I've gotten away with here
and not a single comment banned.
|11.24.07 @ 1:50AM|#
I am still curious, what could have been said that warrants
"banning"?
Well, you'll have to go back and read some of the archives because
I can't say I remember exactly what it was.
In Gary Gunnels case, well, there is just no way I can do him
justice. Gary Gunnels was a special character around here (and had
many other names - Jean Bart, Hakluyt to name a couple) both
admired and reviled by many, often both at the same time. His
breadth of knowledge on any and all topics was matched only by the
acerbic vehemence of his rants, diatribes and insults. I rather
miss him myself, but he alienated a lot of the regulars over time.
I think thoreau would be a good person to ask about GG as I recall
there was some bad blood between those two around the time of the
ban.
As for what got him banned, well it was more the overall nature of
his behavior rather than any one post. At some point in the
discussion I think either Tim Cavanaugh or Gary posted the email
that Tim sent to Gary with some conditions which Gary was to adhere
to if he wished to avoid being banned. I don't recall the specifics
now, but I do remember there was a line from Tim that went
something like "Gary, you've hijacked your last thread."
Of course Gary didn't comply and was banned. However he returned on
various aliases over time, though who knows if he's still around.
Certainly nobody these days posts anything like his masterpieces
anymore so I doubt that he's here under a different name these
days.
Later, Tim posted another comment I just came across which
referenced the bans and is pretty funny to boot so it warrants
reposting in it's entirety for those who weren't around then:
Tim Cavanaugh | August 16, 2005, 6:44pm | #
Things I do know: Jane plays more roles on Hit & Run than Alec Guinness and Peter Sellers combined.
Things I don't know: Whether Hakluyt is JB/[Gary Gunnels]/JB/TM, etc. I hope so. I need somebody to play Klaus Kinski to my Werner Herzog.
Something I just realized: That Mona has been around lately. I hadn't noticed him or her for months, and assumed that Mona had finally made good on that promise to leave us once and for all. But I see a late-July subway thread was a regular Monathon.
Things I wonder about: What became of dj of raleigh, Thomas Paine's Goiter, Andrew, James Merritt, and so many others. You all shit your pants whenever I ban somebody, but who sheds a tear for those regulars who just fade away... Where are the snows of yesteryear?
iih|11.24.07 @ 2:02AM|#
prolefeed, Brian,
Ah, I see. I think this gives me a clear idea of what we're talking
about. That and the thing about Jennifer mentioned above. She could
be both blunt and amusing (mostly the latter).
May be crimethink can tell a bit about his encounter with
Tim.
Honestly, I have to say, I have a very lets say romantic view of
libertarianism (more accurately, liberty --I do not like
the "-ism" at the end; I do not like ideologies nor ideologues). I
know that this sounds collective (but this is how the general
public perceives them) "libertarians" need to work on their social
skills a little bit more, though I think there are many wonderful
"liberty-loving" people on H&R.
|11.24.07 @ 2:18AM|#
Pieces like that is what draws me to the philosophy of
Objectivism before I remind myself that it is a religion for the
insane and lonely high school students.
Wow, what a substantial criticism from someone who is obviously an
intellectual heavyweight.
/sarcasm
Here's the (partial) list of insane/lonely high school students who
consider themselves Objectivists:
Dr. Tibor Machan (Ph.D., professor emeritus at Auburn and former
editor of Reason)
Dr. Harry Binswanger (Ph.D., philosophy, Columbia)
Dr. Andrew Bernstein (Ph.D., philosophy, CUNY)
Dr. Yaron Brook (Ph.D, finance, UT-Austin)
Dr. Tara Smith (Ph.D., philosophy, Johns Hopkins and current
philosophy professor at UT-Austin).
So, johnathan, are you going to admit that you're an ignorant slut,
or is it just one of those things that doesn't need to be said?
|11.24.07 @ 2:20AM|#
"I am also curious, what do you think the best course of action
now is? "
I am a big fan of doing what works. I think the US should continue
with the surge tactics (it is more than just added troops). We
should push the Iraqis to assume more responsibility and control of
their own security.
We should be actively involved in discovering and destroying
insurgents who are embedded in the Iraqi security forces. This will
build faith and confidence in a lawful security force.
We should pressure the militias to continue to cooperate. Muqtadr
Al Sadr has just issued another order for his Shiite militia to
refrain from confrontations with coalition forces for six months.
He did this not because he is a nice guy, but because the new surge
tactics were making his militia (JAM) pay a heavy price for
confrontations.
We should press the Iraqi leadership to come to a political
compromise that will allow peace. This will probably be something
different than was envisioned in the new Iraqi constitution, but
that is, after all, the definiton of compromise.
As the situation stabilizes we should withdraw to our fortified
bases; occasionally, and only when warranted, we should drop the
hammer on the bad guys. This will ensure continued stability
because ordinary Iraqis will be confident that they will be
protected from the middle-east crazies.
Over time, after Iraqi security forces demonstrate their
competence, we should withdraw entirely.
If we begin an immediate, hasty withdrawal that will precipitate a
return to anarchy because the "Iraqi on the street" will be left to
confront the thugs; we know how that worked out.
If this works out we will not be left with "America on the banks of
the Euphrates", but with a middle-east state with middle-east
solutions. Whether Iraqis seize their opportunity for freedom and
democracy is up to Iraqis. That is OK with me.
Michael Hampton|11.24.07 @ 2:25AM|#
If reason really intends to cover the primary "from the ground," the place to be is Murphy's Taproom, 494 Elm St., Manchester. Contact me for further details and to arrange interviews with local grassroots people.
|11.24.07 @ 2:28AM|#
Oh, JB/Gary Gunnels/Haklyut is here. He's the Syloson of Salomos or whatever...he's had like 40 names, so failing to keep up is understandable.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 2:45AM|#
Just curious, anybody know why all fifty state primaries are not held on the same day, like the general election? Is it an anachronism, or is there some other reason?
|11.24.07 @ 2:54AM|#
Here's the (partial) list of insane/lonely high school
students who consider themselves Objectivists:
Dr. Tibor Machan (Ph.D., professor emeritus at Auburn and former
editor of Reason)
Dr. Harry Binswanger (Ph.D., philosophy, Columbia)
Dr. Andrew Bernstein (Ph.D., philosophy, CUNY)
Dr. Yaron Brook (Ph.D, finance, UT-Austin)
Dr. Tara Smith (Ph.D., philosophy, Johns Hopkins and current
philosophy professor at UT-Austin).
So, johnathan, are you going to admit that you're an ignorant slut,
or is it just one of those things that doesn't need to be
said?
I was just being cute, lay off.
|11.24.07 @ 3:15AM|#
aww, johnathan, I'm sorry - us insanely lonely high school
students get sensitive sometimes, especially to throwaway insults
that marginalize a serious intellectual movement.
C'est la vie.
iih|11.24.07 @ 4:28AM|#
If we begin an immediate, hasty withdrawal that will
precipitate a return to anarchy because the "Iraqi on the street"
will be left to confront the thugs; we know how that worked
out.
Unfortunately, I see this happening. Would you disagree with Dr.
Paul then that immediate withdrawal would be bad for Iraqis? That
seems to be one his major difference with the rest of the
pack.
If this works out we will not be left with "America on the
banks of the Euphrates", but with a middle-east state with
middle-east solutions. Whether Iraqis seize their opportunity for
freedom and democracy is up to Iraqis. That is OK with
me.
One really wonders what will happen immediately after any
withdrawal, whether now or later.
|11.24.07 @ 4:40AM|#
RE: Ayn_Randian
Maybe you can answer a question I've had for a while. Back in 2003,
I listened to an interview with Leonard Peikoff promoting the Iraq
war using some lame defense argument. Granted, I've only read
"Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" but what I heard Peikoff
saying seemed completely inconsistent with the logical, reasoned
philosophy I got from those novels. I immediately sent a letter
(via an address listed on the society's website) asking how
objectivism could reconcile using the state as a means to extract
funding from individuals for a non-defensive war. I also asked, if
he was convinced it was defensive, what he based his conclusion on.
I received no answer so I sent it via email to every contact
address I could find on the website. Never received a response. Do
you have any links to explanations for this?
|11.24.07 @ 6:38AM|#
"Unfortunately, I see this happening. Would you disagree with
Dr. Paul then that immediate withdrawal would be bad for Iraqis?
That seems to be one his major difference with the rest of the
pack."
I am not familiar with Ron Paul's opinion about the impact of an
immediate withdrawal. I think an immediate withdrawal would
generate an immediate showdown between the parties vieing for
power: Sadr's militia, the Sunni militias, Al Qaida, and the
elected government. This would spawn an immediate civil war. How
long it would last is not clear to me. It would definitely be
violent with none of the politically correct boundaries that the US
observes. To me, that sounds "bad for Iraqis".
After the bloodletting, the victors would establish their rule. I
can't imagine how it would be "good" to be ruled by Sadr, or Al
Qaida, or any militia.
To be fair, I am not terribly convinced that the current elected
Iraqi government would be much "better"; they all seem to me to be
grasping for the sort of dictatorial power and boundless wealth
that Saddam enjoyed.
So, yes I think it would be disastrous for the average Iraqi if the
US withdrew hastily.
|11.24.07 @ 6:42AM|#
Jibbster - Peikoff does not speak for Objectivism. Example one:
his (irk) endorsement of John Kerry in 2004 for equally lame
reasons made me hate him all the more.
However, I do have some links if you want to e-mail me (I don't
know how to link things in HTML...sometimes I feel like an old
man)...The Iraq war created a big fault line in Objectivism too,
with ARI members corrupting Rand's beliefs about interventionist
wars.
There's no question in my mind that Rand would have opposed the
war. Whether rational thinking Objectivists can come to a different
conclusion (I don't think they can; I think residual 9/11 anger and
a refusal to admit error drives the bloodthirsty Objectivist wing)
is a great question.
|11.24.07 @ 6:43AM|#
"One really wonders what will happen immediately after any
withdrawal, whether now or later."
Withdawal later would at least give ordinary Iraqis the opportunity
to go through an election cycle. If they are fed up with Maliki,
they can vote his ass out of office and bring in the next lieing
bastard, just like we do in America. Iraq is a corrupt, tribal
country, and it is not going to change overnight.
|11.24.07 @ 6:51AM|#
wayne - you need to pack up your crystal ball and your trunk of
prognostications and peddle that junk somewhere else.
The truth is that you have no idea what is going to happen to the
Iraqis if we leave, and neither does anyone else. Confessedly,
relatively few of us (that is, withdrawal advocates) care...it's
not our responsibility to stick around and figure things out for
grown adults, especially not at 1 trillion dollars and 4,000 dead,
with an additional 40,000 wounded Americans.
Not good for the Iraqis? We should be asking what's good for
America...that is who I fight for, anyway.
Uncle Joe Stalin|11.24.07 @ 6:53AM|#
I am still curious, what could have been said that warrants
"banning"?
Hitler was banned for being bad and evil. I have never been
banned.
Go Vanderbilt! Vote Ron Paul!
You really need to get out of Iraq, it is a lost cause for you and
your troops are just in my way.
|11.24.07 @ 7:08AM|#
Ayn,
First off, you can kiss my ass so far as my prognostications are
concerned. I was asked a reasonable question and I responded
civilly with my reasoned opinion.
I agree with you that we should be asking what's good for America.
There are many different ways of judging what is "good". An
immediate withdrawal would stop the hemorhage of blood and money
(or ate least slow it), but it might not be "good" in the long run.
Your crystal ball is no better than mine.
|11.24.07 @ 7:22AM|#
What?? Could edna be yet another alias of of the enigmatic
Gary Gunnels?
no, nor any of the others mentioned. i was a pretty minor
character, not really worthy of notice, but disagreed strongly
(though absolutely politely- my style has not changed) with tim
regarding the israeli-hizbollah war. for obvious reasons, tim had
some personal issues with that and i found suddenly that i couldn't
post. so, ip and nick change.
this all happened right about the same time as that awful incident
that took away my pinkie fingers (shift key is now difficult for
me).
|11.24.07 @ 7:23AM|#
Fair enough, wayne, I was a little harsh. My apologies.
The facts, however, are this: we are hemorrhaging money and
Soldiers for an unknown. That doesn't sound like the best course
for the country to me, and I'm not sure how you can justify that to
yourself.
|11.24.07 @ 7:29AM|#
it's not our responsibility to stick around and figure
things out for grown adults
the perfect summation of a wise foreign policy.
Guy Montag|11.24.07 @ 7:46AM|#
UN/MSM INDEPENDANT NEWS
Global Warming Takes More Prisoners
The good ship Explorer was, er, exploring the ever warming
Antartic when it was pierced by something, no doubt put there by
President George Bush, and almost 2,000 people died because of a US
failed policy.
Exploring the pristine wilderness, unmolested by man, were some 150
people who were tossed haplessly into the freezing water requiring
rescue by the UK Royal Navy.
Expect more people to freeze to death because of George Bush global
warming.
|11.24.07 @ 7:53AM|#
Apology accepted.
I agree with Colin Powell's remark, "You break it, you own it". We
broke it, we own it.
It strikes me as very cowardly to walk away from Iraq and leave it
in the clutches of multiple violent groups, each with bad
intents.
It is popular here to pretend that Islamic fundamentalism
(Islamofascism) is no threat to the west, but I disagree.
We should not have invaded Iraq, but that is water under the
bridge. Now we have to figure a way to allow Iraqi citizens to
establish a government of their choosing.
|11.24.07 @ 8:13AM|#
Now we have to figure a way to allow Iraqi citizens to
establish a government of their choosing.
why? are they stupid children? do they need to be guided by their
besserwissers?
It is popular here to pretend that Islamic fundamentalism
(Islamofascism) is no threat to the west
of course islamofascism is a threat to the west. and the east, too.
but post-saddam iraq is not.
|11.24.07 @ 8:25AM|#
"why? are they stupid children? do they need to be guided by
their besserwissers?"
No, they are not children. I don't know what a "besserwisser" is,
so I won't comment on whether Iraqis have one, or need one. We
should help them for the same reason that you do not abandon an
injured man by the side of the road.
"of course islamofascism is a threat to the west. and the east,
too. but post-saddam iraq is not."
Islamofascists have chosen to confront US forces in Iraq. You are
not claiming that the US is simply opposed by ordinary Iraqis who
only want the US to withdraw, are you?
Fluffy|11.24.07 @ 8:28AM|#
Uh, Wayne - if the injured man on the side of the road kept trying to stab me in the eye with a pencil, and kept trying to steal the trillion dollar bill in my pocket, I would in fact abandon his injured ass right there.
|11.24.07 @ 8:30AM|#
"Uh, Wayne - if the injured man on the side of the road kept
trying to stab me in the eye with a pencil, and kept trying to
steal the trillion dollar bill in my pocket, I would in fact
abandon his injured ass right there."
Yes, you would, and his injured family as well, even as they asked
for your help.
Fluffy|11.24.07 @ 8:34AM|#
And by the way, Wayne, the surge has "worked" to the extent that
it has returned violence to 2005 levels. That's better than the
disaster that was 2006, but I have to tell you: I thought the war
wasn't worth it in 2005 either. So returning to the 2005 situation
is not exactly a win to me, and not exactly a reason to suddenly
embrace the war.
iih -
I don't think Paul believes that there would not be a sectarian
showdown following a US withdrawal. But we have a sectarian
showdown already, which has been indefinitely extended because the
US won't let one side actually WIN. If the US withdraws, there will
be a spasm of violence followed by a return to stability. That may
not be a great thing, but it's better than a slow bleed of violence
that lasts another decade, and produces thousands of US casualties
and another trillion in US costs. The line to a stable Iraqi
republic may be shorter and less costly if they are allowed to make
their own mistakes than it will be if we continue to try to
dominate the environment.
|11.24.07 @ 8:43AM|#
You are not claiming that the US is simply opposed by
ordinary Iraqis who only want the US to withdraw, are
you?
no, but i'm claiming that (in current iraq) the u.s. is opposed by
people who present no threat to us.
the threats are real, but they're not from the rag-tag "army" that
is busy blowing up markets and cars.
Fluffy|11.24.07 @ 8:44AM|#
With regard to Objectivism not being a serious philosophy:
I think everyone who says that should keep in mind that Objectivism
is not derided academically for its political or economic aspects.
All the stuff we argue about here, about how Objectivists are
"heartless" or whatever means absolutely nothing in that respect.
It's described as an unserious philosophy because Rand set as
axioms to her philosophy the statements that the world we see
around us exists, and that there is no additional plane of
existence to consider, and that the formal rules of
noncontradiction that we call "logic" are valid and represent not
just an arbitrary system but the actual state of affairs in
existence as a whole. She also refused to accept any rejection of
those axioms that employed assumptions that were only possible if
those axioms were true. Since speculation about the possible
rejection of those two axioms makes up quite a bit of the history
of modern philosophy, that placed her firmly outside of that
system.
Of course, the funny thing is that most of the people who say that
Objectivism is unserious actually accept those axioms in their, you
know, actual lives, and don't find them unserious at all. And if
they don't accept those axioms, well - I'm happy to concede that
Objectivism is absurd if reality doesn't actually exist and if it
is, in fact, possible for A to simultaneously be A and not A.
|11.24.07 @ 8:47AM|#
"I don't think Paul believes that there would not be a sectarian
showdown following a US withdrawal. But we have a sectarian
showdown already..."
I don't think there would be a sectarian showdown either, except
that sectarian resentments might be stoked by those grasping for
power. I think that is what has happened already. It was to the
benefit of the displaced Saddamites to have Shiites and Sunnis
killing each other, so they committed terrorist acts designed to
inflame whatever resentments existed naturally. The danger the
inflamers run is that they can't restore peace between Sunnis and
Shiites when it sectarian mayhem no longer benefits them.
Fluffy|11.24.07 @ 8:48AM|#
Yes, you would, and his injured family as well, even as they
asked for your help.
Yes, I would, because the condition of getting my help is that you
refrain from trying to stab me in the eye with a pencil, and
refrain from trying to steal my trillion dollar bill. If you think
that's immoral, you are an immoral bastard. It is SIMPLY NOT JUST
for you to demand help while refusing to PUT THE FUCKING PENCIL
DOWN. If you can't meet my extremely reasonable conditions, you
have no grounds for trying to guilt me into helping you, and you
should go fuck yourself. Anyone else whom I cannot or do not help
because you won't put the pencil down is your moral responsibility,
and not mine. Hit the bricks.
|11.24.07 @ 8:51AM|#
The point is probably moot in any case. I think there is a very good chance that the US will withdraw after the next presidential election. Then we will see what happens.
|11.24.07 @ 8:54AM|#
wayne - how long did the British fight to "stabilize" Ireland?
Look at how long and painful that process was. And those were two
nations/groups of people who shared geopgraphical and cultural
heritage.
wayne, you really don't want to stick to the "break it, own it"
argument. When you have to replace something, you replace it with
the same or a similar item. So if we deposed Saddam and just
installed a socialist strongman, you would be happy, right?
Besides, who's this "we" in the "we broke it"
argument anyway? Is the government the people of the US? Should we
the people (and the Armed Forces) continue to pay for a government
mistake?
|11.24.07 @ 8:59AM|#
"no, but i'm claiming that (in current iraq) the u.s. is opposed
by people who present no threat to us. "
I agree that some who want the US out of Iraq are simply POIs
(pissed off Iraqis), and that they represent no large threat
against America after we vacate Iraq.
There are some groups operating in Iraq who represent a significant
threat to the US and others. These are not POIs, they are from
Saudi Arabia and Libya and Chechnya and Afghanistan and Paksitan,
etc.
|11.24.07 @ 9:04AM|#
Since speculation about the possible rejection of those two
axioms makes up quite a bit of the history of modern philosophy,
that placed her firmly outside of that system.
Fluffy - I had never considered that as the reason for the
systematic academic rejection of the philosophy. That's
exceptionally insightful, esp re: to academics utilizing the axioms
but then rejecting that they are absolutes.
well-played, sir. well-played.
*golf claps*
|11.24.07 @ 9:04AM|#
"Besides, who's this "we" in the "we broke it" argument anyway?
Is the government the people of the US? Should we the people (and
the Armed Forces) continue to pay for a government mistake?"
The "We" in this argument is the United States. You live in a
representative Republic. Actions of the state, ordered by the US
President are "your" actions.
I am not going to bother to address your "break it, own it"
point.
Eric Dondero|11.24.07 @ 9:07AM|#
Good to see someone finally attaching the adjective
"dissastrous" to David Bergland and his 1984 Libertarian
Presidential Campaign.
Easily the very worst LP Prez Campaign in the Party's entire
history. Got so bad, post-Bergland that the Party even dipped below
4,000 paid members for a few months in 1985.
Bergland should crawl back under a rock, and leave us
Winner-tarians alone.
squarooticus|11.24.07 @ 9:37AM|#
Hey, wayne: I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I certainly don't take
moral responsibility (and I shouldn't have to take economic
responsibility) for the actions of a federal government whose
elimination I advocate.
But more widely, I don't see why anyone who didn't vote for Bush
and the rest of the Neocon crowd---and especially those who have
spent substantial time and effort advocating an end to this
war---should be held responsible for his policies: short of armed
rebellion, they've done just about everything they could to bring
an end to it.
squarooticus|11.24.07 @ 9:44AM|#
Donderoooooooooooooo: Don't you mean "Winner-cons"? Oh wait, that would require that you actually win. Good luck with that. :-)
Guy Montag|11.24.07 @ 9:47AM|#
The David Bergland era was when I first heard about the
Libertarian Party, then forgot all about it for about 10
years.
There was some guy on a national financial show back then that ran
on PBS in Knoxville, TN in the early 1980s who would mention the
Libertarian Party on occasion and said more and more Americans were
turning to it and then I did not hear much more from him or the
Party either, but it did sound interesting and a co-worker said her
parents in PA were Libertarian.
I really should look up some of the stuff from back then just to
see how my attitudes have changed.
|11.24.07 @ 9:50AM|#
I am not going to bother to address your "break it, own it"
point.
Why? Because you can't refute it or it doesn't conform to your
interventionist attitude?
Eric:
"Winner-tarians"
Are you delusional, syphilitic or both?
Fluffy|11.24.07 @ 10:24AM|#
"Winner-tarians" may be the most excruciatingly bad neologism
since "Freedom Fries".
Seriously, is there some sort of contest somewhere to see who can
come up with the most tone-deaf political catchphrase?
Fluffy|11.24.07 @ 10:25AM|#
"Hey, me and the other winner-tarians are going to go get some liberty cabbage and then we're going out to win some hearts and minds among the differently-abled. Who's in?"
iih|11.24.07 @ 10:45AM|#
wayne:
Since I was a child, I was told that it is common wisdom that Iraq
has historically a very bloody place, from the Persian-Byzantine
era (and probably earlier), through the bloodshed of the "faction"
of Ali ("Shia" means "faction", thinking that they were defending
Ali, who acually had nothing to do with the whole thing) against
the a new and "unelected" system of hereditary governance, the
Moguls came through and completely destroyed Baghdad, through to
the Saracen-Ottoman rivalry, onto the modern era bloodsheds, which
we are all familiar with.
As the saying goes, "don't mess with Iraq".
Anyhow, Iraq has been a mess. Things seem to be improving.
Unfortunately, I still believe that there are those (Sadamites,
Sadrites, Al-Qaida) who, while committing some atrocities now (with
a decreasing rate of violence) are keeping their heads low and will
be waiting for a US withdrawal. Once the US withdraws, it will be
free for all, whether the withdrawal happens now or later.
I am not basing this on "facts" or reports, or whatever. I am
basing it on the common wisdom. These 3 groups (Sadamites,
Al-Qaida, and Sadr) are violent, criminal, stubborn, but no
stupid.
On the bright side, however, I see that, after a bloodshed that
will ensue US withdrawal (regardless of whether that happens today
or in 10 years), the different factions will come to realize that
they can't take it all and will have to reach a compromise of
sorts. It feels like Lebanon all over again.
I really hope I am wrong.
BTW, I am not sure if Fluffy, Ayn, and others who disagree with
wayne, realize that wayne is in Iraq. At least wish him safety.
Guy Montag|11.24.07 @ 10:49AM|#
Donderoooooooooooooo: Don't you mean "Winner-cons"? Oh wait,
that would require that you actually win. Good luck with that.
:-)
Need some Joementum for that don't you?
|11.24.07 @ 11:03AM|#
fluffy
I don't think academics deride or ignore Rand because of what you
mention. I think it has to do with the fact that she did not, in
fact, play by the rules of philosophy. If you read her For the New
Intellectual you get something you will not find among the
philosophers that academe takes seriously: a rant/screed in which
she claims only Aristotle among the entire Western tradition had
ANYTHING good to say. She derides everyone else for not just being
wrong on EVERYTHING but for being bad, evil, delusional "witch
doctors" and the like. She just could not see that many of the
folks she disagreed with had some weighty things to say, or was
unable to grasp the nuance of what they were saying (saying the
John Locke and David Hume did not "believe in reality" is absurdly
simplistic). In doing these kinds of things she demonstrated a low
level of thought, and thus is not taken seriously by philosophers.
My philosophy professors in college were not knee jerkers opposed
to libertarian ideas, they taught Nozick and Hospers for example
quite a bit. But Rand was a joke to them.
Now, having said that, I always thought it was a crock that she was
not addressed and taught more in English and Literature classes. I
find some of her early work (We the Living for example) to be quite
good and provocative literature, and with strong women characters
which one would think would make the feminists in those departments
swoon. Yes, her later stuff became polemical to the point of making
her work unintentionally hilarious (the speeches in Atlas Shrugged
or Fountainhead demonstrate that when it comes to writing dialogue
Rand had the ear of a snake), but Lit departments (at least in my
day) taught equally polemical and artifical writers (think of Upton
Sinclair or Harriet Beecher Stowe, or her hero Hugo). There is no
excuse to ignore her in that area.
|11.24.07 @ 11:04AM|#
I agree with Colin Powell's remark, "You break it, you own
it". We broke it, we own it.
It's amazing how many hawks are latching on to that quote, for
purposes entirely contrary to the point Powell was trying to make.
"You break it, you buy it" is intended to mean "Don't break
it."
I'll believe they're sincere about this when they start advocating
impeaching/firing the fools who talked us into breaking it, and
stop advocating "breaking" more countries (Iran). Till then, it's
just another political ploy.
|11.24.07 @ 11:07AM|#
Look, as I've said before here I am not a libertarian. Lord knows the "libertopian" types seem a bit nuts to me. But this Donderooo guy misses the point of a party like the Libertarian Party or the movement in general. A movement like that may not do well in general elections, but it has big influences on the currents of thought within the two parties. Without Libertarian influence the GOP would simply be a theocratic Party (the Party of God?), but as it is they invoke a wide range of market ideas that often had their roots in some place like Cato. In the same way the socialists and the progressive party may not have won many elections, but they made the Democrats adopt many, many of their ideas. Mocking libertarians for not winning elections is childish and misses the point entirely.
|11.24.07 @ 11:08AM|#
BTW, I am not sure if Fluffy, Ayn, and others who disagree
with wayne, realize that wayne is in Iraq. At least wish him
safety.
I did not know that. In that case, I respect wayne for putting his
life where his mouth is, so to speak, though I still disagree with
him.
|11.24.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Thank you crimethink for bringing that up. Hawks seem to miss that point entirely. They forget how they reviled Powell at the time for not jumping on the bandwagon fast and strongly enough for them...Now they quote him...And badly...
|11.24.07 @ 11:16AM|#
MNG,
You're welcome. I wonder how many hawks think we have an obligation
to fix the Native American civilizations that our ancestors
broke.
|11.24.07 @ 11:21AM|#
I think there is a very good chance that the US will
withdraw after the next presidential election. Then we will see
what happens.
Please, throw this in my face when and if I'm proved wrong. A
little humility is good for a guy, but this probably won't be a
lesson in that.
When the U.S. forces leave Iraq, the government there
WILL evolve into, or be replaced by, an
authoritarian strong man reminiscent of (TA - DAAA) Saddam Hussein.
Whether it is Muqtada al-Sadr, or some other player in the mess of
tribal and religious intolerance that is present day Mesopotamia
matters not. It will still be a dictatorial strongman, full of
bluster and false international bravado, who ignores human rights
while enriching himself and his cronies.
I didn't even need to fire up the Xtal ball for that one.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 11:28AM|#
squarooticus | November 24, 2007, 9:37am | #
Hey, wayne: I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I certainly don't take
moral responsibility (and I shouldn't have to take economic
responsibility) for the actions of a federal government whose
elimination I advocate.
But more widely, I don't see why anyone who didn't vote for Bush
and the rest of the Neocon crowd---and especially those who have
spent substantial time and effort advocating an end to this
war---should be held responsible for his policies: short of armed
rebellion, they've done just about everything they could to bring
an end to it.
Because we in America have profited buy it, perhaps. I would prefer
to toss a bomb and be done. Hopefully, it will happen. I cannot
wait for all those 'Git-R-Done' rednecks to realize what will
happen after that bomb is tossed.
"Be Ashamed to Die Until You Have Won Some Victory for Humanity."
Horace Mann
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Bo Diddley | November 24, 2007, 11:21am | #
oldnumberseven, if you don't already know, you never
will.
Islam and fascism don't seem to really mix. Islam was around a long
time before fascism, so at the least the term should Islamic
Fascist, but I don't really see that easier. People who want to
defeat Islam should know that it will happen by defeating their
God. This is how it has been done since men had Gods. The only easy
way to do this through pornography.
|11.24.07 @ 11:35AM|#
I am going by memory, so it is possible I am wrong, but I am
pretty sure Powell's words were, "You brake it, you own it". He was
advocating against breaking it in the first place, and I agreed
with him on that point, we should not have invaded Iraq.
His point though, was that we could not just go in and destroy a
functioning dictatorship and simply walk away. I agree with that
point. We did break it, and now we are trying to fix the problem
that we now own.
Ultimately, it is the Iraqis alone who can fiz their problem. All
we can do is provide some breathing room and some protection,
temporarily, from the evil ones who simply want to substitute
themselves for Sadam.
iih|11.24.07 @ 11:35AM|#
"Be Ashamed to Die Until You Have Won Some Victory for
Humanity." Horace Mann
Who gets to define "victory" and "humanity" --"humanity" as in
"civilization", "humanity" as in "democracy"?
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 11:39AM|#
iih | November 24, 2007, 11:35am | #
Who gets to define "victory" and "humanity" --"humanity" as in
"civilization", "humanity" as in "democracy"?
You do. You are empowered. Shape the world.
iih|11.24.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Regarding Islamofascism, for the life of me I can't yet figure
out what it means. I think I know what those who use the terms mean
by it. I think the better word should be either "Islamic
fanaticism", or better yet "religious fanaticism", and best of them
all is "fanaticism". That way we do not alienate moderate Muslims
who are very defensive of their religion.
Here is a quote from this article:
People like Giuliani, who insist on conflating Islam with
terrorism and fascism, care not about the linguistic absurdity of
such combinations. "Islam" is an Arabic word while "terrorism" and
"fascism" are English words rooted in the European, not Islamic,
experience.
You may also like to see my view on these issues here, especially
the first article and the "moral" of the second article (after the
video). Don't forget to leave feedback.
|11.24.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Chavez's refendum is ten - count 'em, ten - points behind in
polling, 49% to 39%.
Let's cross our fingers, and hope that the elections are as free,
fair, and clean as the others that have taken place over the past
few years.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 11:58AM|#
iih | November 24, 2007, 11:46am | #
I think I know what those who use the terms mean by
it
It means anyone who worships in an Islamic fashion is an enemy.
They must be killed, converted to christianity, or tortured. If
they convert, then you must immediately put them to death so that
they do not revert to their barbaric ways. That is all it really
means.
|11.24.07 @ 11:59AM|#
iih,
Islamofascism is a term used to conflate the political Islam with
Arab nationalism, and mislead the American public into thinking
that the two parties are the same, instead of the mortal enemies
they actually are.
There is Islamic fanaticism. And there are fascist nationalist
movements in the Muslim world, including pan-Arab nationalism and
its degenerated step-children. And they are at war.
Islamofascism is a term whose purpose for existing is to mislead
the American public by redirecting the militancy we feel towards al
Qaeda towards unrelated enemies, in the service of an imperialist,
hegemonic foreign policy.
|11.24.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Closer to home, for me anyway, the Michigan Supreme Court has
approved the Jan. 15 primary for both major parties. Some salient
points -
Mighigan is an open primary state. When you get to the polls you
can vote in either primary. Not both, of course. This is
significant in that Democrats crossed over in 2000 giving John
McCain the victory over the favored GW Bush.
Because of a hissy fit outbreak in the Denocratic party over
Michigan advancing its primary date, Hillary Clinton is the only
big name that will appear on the Democratic primary ballot. None of
the Dems will campaign here, so Hillary is pretty much a
shoo-in.
The Dems appear ready to "punish" Michigan for holding an early
primary, by reducing or eliminating their delegates at the national
convention. That should be interesting. Michigan is not Vermont or
Alaska with three electoral votes, Michigan matters in the race for
an electoral college majority. Do the Dems, in the name of party
discipline, want to piss off us Michiganders, possibly throwing the
state to the Republican party in November? Hmmm.
The open primary, coupled with a complete Chinese fuck story of a
democratic primary, gives, I believe, Ron Paul a very good chance
of a second place (or better?) finish in the Republican
primary.
The preceding is not to be taken as gospel by any means.
Addiitions, updates and corrections would be appreciated.
Your thoughts?
iih|11.24.07 @ 12:01PM|#
It means anyone who worships in an Islamic fashion is an
enemy. They must be killed, converted to christianity, or tortured.
If they convert, then you must immediately put them to death so
that they do not revert to their barbaric ways. That is all it
really means.
No, I actually do not buy that either. That adds fuel to the
fire.
|11.24.07 @ 12:01PM|#
David Bergland's comments are disturbing. Ron Paul is not
sweeping the nation. Ron paul is a single-digit candiate in a
primary. The non-libertarians are not "surrounded by a sea" of
libertarians.
Language like this suggests that Paul's campaign is to be judged
purely in terms of whether he wins the nomination, and that's
ridiculous.
iih|11.24.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Islamofascism is a term used to conflate the political Islam
with Arab nationalism, and mislead the American public into
thinking that the two parties are the same, instead of the mortal
enemies they actually are.
There is Islamic fanaticism. And there are fascist nationalist
movements in the Muslim world, including pan-Arab nationalism and
its degenerated step-children. And they are at war.
Islamofascism is a term whose purpose for existing is to mislead
the American public by redirecting the militancy we feel towards al
Qaeda towards unrelated enemies, in the service of an imperialist,
hegemonic foreign policy.
Sir, you have put it very very well! May I quote you in my blog
when I find the right place fot it?
|11.24.07 @ 12:05PM|#
J sub D,
It might be possible for Paul to link the DNC's actions in Michigan
to the leading candidates' alleged pro-Iraq War positions.
"Liberals, the Democratic Party doesn't want to listen to you! They
aren't listening to what you're saying about Iraq, and now they
don't want to listen to you at all! The Washington establishment
candidates are all the same, I'm the outside who'll end the war..."
blah blah blah. It could work, because they aren't just two little
points - they could be part of a narrative.
|11.24.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Chavez's refendum is ten - count 'em, ten - points behind in
polling, 49% to 39%.
Let's cross our fingers, and hope that the elections are as free,
fair, and clean as the others that have taken place over the past
few years.
joe -
Agreed. If it all turns out for the best, I'll have to eat some
crow on an earlier prediction. I hope to do so, but remain guarded
about the legitimacy of the election.
iih|11.24.07 @ 12:06PM|#
The open primary, coupled with a complete Chinese fuck story of a
democratic primary, gives, I believe, Ron Paul a very good chance
of a second place (or better?) finish in the Republican
primary.
I heard (and hope) that Arab Americans in SE MI will vote for Paul.
Those holding back are still bitter about Bush stabbing their back
with Patriot Act and Iraq. Have you heard anything about that? RP
was very well received by Arab American Institute in Dearborn.
|11.24.07 @ 12:10PM|#
wayne - good luck, brother. It sucks over here.
However, I don't believe anybody's service status makes them more
or less qualified to speak on any philosophical point.
Just because we started a war (think WoD) does not mean that it
passes a sanity check to continue it. Yes, the extricating oneself
from a conflict is painful, but it's better to just rip the bandage
off now.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 12:10PM|#
iih | November 24, 2007, 12:01pm | #
No, I actually do not buy that either. That adds fuel to the
fire.
Eh, what the hell else do you expect from all the talking heads who
use a term like islamofascism? They mean the term to add
fuel to the fire. They mean that the whole of the U.S. population
should be happy were all people who worship in an Islamic fashion
be destroyed, or put into camps.
|11.24.07 @ 12:13PM|#
iih,
You might find this difficult to believe, avowed atheists are not
especially welcomed by the Arab Americcan Institute in Dearborn. My
talking up Ron Paul there would likely(assuredly?) be
counter=productive. I'll keep my ears to the ground though. I can
read the local Arab American papers on Monday.
|11.24.07 @ 12:14PM|#
wayne, Ayn Randian,
I hope you both stay safe, and I hope you spend the next
Thanksgiving at home surrounded by your families.
Having people with your commmitment and courage is something we
should all be thankful for.
|11.24.07 @ 12:15PM|#
iih | November 24, 2007, 12:10pm | #
My last comment & question were for J sub D.
And I aws responding as you were posting that.
At your service,
J sub D ;-)
iih|11.24.07 @ 12:17PM|#
oldnumberseven-
I really believe that joe put it very well above. For the lack of a
better word, it is a fad, with the Islamic terrorists, confused
with Arab nationalism and other injustices, as evidence. It will
die out eventually as people grow tired/bored. Then onto something
new, some new fear and new enemy. Repeat ad infinitum. Foreign
intervention ad infinitum.
iih|11.24.07 @ 12:20PM|#
J sub D:
AAI is secular, no? At least that is my understanding. Many are
liberal Christian, at least that was my impression when I used to
drive there for some baklava.
|11.24.07 @ 12:22PM|#
It will die out eventually as people grow tired/bored. Then
onto something new, some new fear and new enemy.
I humbly propose "The latest singing craze - The Arabic Spice
Girls". Sometimes it's better to get riled up over unimportant
stuff like that. Lord knows, lots of westerners have vented at the
originals.
|11.24.07 @ 12:26PM|#
iih,
Congratulations, you now get to speak for The Muslim Community. I
knew this one Arab guy, and he told me...:-)
So, about your people...what do you think the effect of Paul's
anti-secularist, Christian nation rhetoric would be on Musllim
voters? On the one hand, I don't think people with ties to the
Middle East would be too thrilled at the prospect of living as a
religious minority in an avowedly-religious nation. On the other
hand, Bush's success in 2000 would seem to suggest a certain
openness to the idea of a Christian and Muslim conservatives being
allies in a war against secular modernity.
What say you? And by "you," I mean the millions of Americans you
speak for. ;-)
|11.24.07 @ 12:46PM|#
An Islamofascist is a person who refuses to allow others to live
in peace absent Islam. Convert or die. It is acceptable to murder
non-Muslims. I fail to understand why some of you pretend that this
is a difficult concept.
"Death to infidels, death to America", etc. These are the
utterances of an Islamofascist.
The fact that "Islam" is an Arabic word and "fascist" is European
in orgin is irrelevant in my opinion. The English language has a
long history of adopting non-English words; that is what makes the
English the richest language on the planet.
Islamofascism is the ideology taught to kids in many (not all, I
hope) Madrassas throughout the middle east. The fruits born of that
education are people who fly airplanes into buildings full of
innocent people. This is not to say that most Muslims are fascist,
but it only takes a fairly small percentage of the largest religion
on Earth to make things unpleasant for everybody, Muslims and
infidels alike.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 12:49PM|#
iih | November 24, 2007, 12:17pm | #
I really believe that joe put it very well above. For the lack
of a better word, it is a fad, with the Islamic terrorists,
confused with Arab nationalism and other injustices, as
evidence.
I have never heard an Arab terrorist, or an Arab terrorist
political wing describe themselves as islamofascists. The
term is meant to describe the enemy, and is used, as far as I know
exclusively by the right wing in the U.S.
Yourself, and joe, seem to me to be describing the term in real
world terms and definitions, and the possible etymology of the
term. The people who use the term do not care about definitions,
affiliations, or figuring out the difference between Shia or Sunni.
As King George said in this comment an
islamofascist is who is whomever is said is an
islamofascist.
They only write islamofascist because they can not write
sand-nigger and be taken seriously. They only write
islamofascist so that the Git-R-Done crowd will be
frightened and vote the way the writer desires.
iih|11.24.07 @ 12:51PM|#
joe,
I am actually not sure if you're being sarcastic. I think thee is a
disconnect between me and you in your first paragraph. Are you
doubting that I am Arab/Muslim? If not, and I am not being
defensive here, but where do I claim or imply to speak for "The
Muslim Community"?
Regarding your second para, I think in general, many Muslims would
feel comfortable in either a secular or tolerant Christian
society. Regarding,
On the other hand, Bush's success in 2000 would seem to suggest
a certain openness to the idea of a Christian and Muslim
conservatives being allies in a war against secular
modernity.
Yes, I think you are quite right. That is why having them vote for
Paul may be a tough sell. They may simply not trust any Republican
in the foreseeable future.
Regarding Paul, I am personally very enthusiastic about him,
initially, because he wants to bring an America that was advertised
to me personally, though my readings of American history, the
Revolution, the Constitution, Independence, freedom of speech and
religion (or lack thereof), etc. When Christian conservatives come
to endanger that, as a Muslim, I feel threatened once they start
adopting things like "Islamofascism", etc. They are not the kind of
Christians I would like to have in office. Similarly, for
seculars.
Later, I continued to inquire about Paul's religious beliefs. I
have no problem with him or his religious philosophies at all. He
has defended Muslims in this country and outside better than any
one else. He did not do so pandering to a Muslim audiance. He did
it before a conservative, libertarian, and right wing audience at
Liberty Fest 2007. He slammed D'Souza. See the video
here.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 12:53PM|#
wayne | November 24, 2007, 12:46pm | #
Islamofascism is the ideology taught to kids in many (not all,
I hope) Madrassas throughout the middle east. The fruits born of
that education are people who fly airplanes into buildings full of
innocent people. This is not to say that most Muslims are fascist,
but it only takes a fairly small percentage of the largest religion
on Earth to make things unpleasant for everybody, Muslims and
infidels alike.
So how many people worship in the Islamic fashion, and how many
people flew planes into buildings? What is the math on that? What
is the percentage of islamofascists to people who worship
in the Islamic faith?
|11.24.07 @ 12:56PM|#
wayne,
We aren't having trouble understanding what the people who use the
term mean by it, any more than we have trouble understanding what
the Bolsheviks meant by "kulaks." We just think it's
bullshit.
The definition you just provided does not include Saddam Hussein or
Bashir Assad, who are clearly supposed to fit into that
category.
Even if your definition was the operative one, it would still be a
misnomer. Fascism is a actual, historical phenomenon with certain
characteristics, not a catch-all term for bad guys. Do you see
politically-violent Muslim fundamentalists arguing for biological
definitions of the People? Endorsing corporatist economic policies?
Those are fundamental, non-negotiable planks of fascism, and they
are completely absent in the jihadist/wahabbist political
movements.
The Muslims you describe are bad dudes, but they are not fascists.
They are something else, with their own specific beliefs and means
of operationg. Misunderstanding the nature of the threat can only
serve to make it harder to defeat that threat, and that is a luxury
we cannot afford.
|11.24.07 @ 12:58PM|#
I don't think people with ties to the Middle East would be
too thrilled at the prospect of living as a religious minority in
an avowedly-religious nation.
Their freedom to worship as they choose is far safer in the US than
anywhere in the Middle East. And that definitely wouldn't change
under a Ron Paul presidency.
|11.24.07 @ 12:59PM|#
iih,
In the US, there are a lot of workplaces, classrooms, and
neighborhoods which are populated by a large group of white people
and one black guy. It's become a well-known, much mocked practice
to ask The Black Guy his opinion, and treat his opinion as "what
black people think."
I was making a joke about your being The One Muslim Guy, like The
One Black Guy.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 1:00PM|#
In the town I live in, some chaps decided to throw bricks through the windows of store keepers they thought were islamofascists one fine evening. Of course, the store keepers were greeks.
|11.24.07 @ 1:01PM|#
joe,
Does that make you the One Liberal Guy? Or should I say, the One
Progressofascist Guy?
|11.24.07 @ 1:01PM|#
"However, I don't believe anybody's service status makes them
more or less qualified to speak on any philosophical point."
I absolutely agree with this point. The only advantages I have by
being here are that I have met a fair number of real Iraqis, and
heard their stories directly, and I have become more attuned to the
whole situation because I am in the middle of it.
I am no hero. I came over here for several reasons, none of them
heroic. The main reason I came is because my 20 year-old son is in
the US Army in the 4th Infantry Division. I was pretty certain he
was coming over here, so I figured I would join him. As luck would
have it, he was assigned to Korea for a year instead. He just came
back to the states from Korea in September. The rumor mill says he
will soon be headed this way though, so I will probably get to meet
up with him soon.
|11.24.07 @ 1:03PM|#
Their freedom to worship as they choose is far safer in the
US than anywhere in the Middle East.
Certainly that is true, but I'm sure you could see how relgious
minorities could see any politics that would move us away from
secularism and towards a national Christian identity as being a
step away from that tradition of tolerance and freedom for
religious minorities, and how people with familitarity with the
Middle East could be especially apprhenstive about what such a
movement could mean.
iih|11.24.07 @ 1:03PM|#
wayne:
Islamofascism to me implies an organized, nationalistic movement
meant to drive hoards of people against a perceived enemy. The
appendage "fascism" implies a well organized, systematic ideology.,
while this is partially true, it gives it a sense of place and
nation. Appending it to "Islam" implies that anyone who is
"Islamic" is part of that "fascist state". Which is far from true.
That is why many Muslims are extremely alarmed by the choice of
word. "Islamofascism" also implies that there is no substitute for
"fascism" in Islam, for why don't they (those who coined the term)
offer an alternative solution (that does not dismiss Islam from the
picture)?
|11.24.07 @ 1:05PM|#
crimethink,
I get the One Liberal Guy treatment on occasion.
I get asked who I'm supporting in the primaries a lot.
I'm not complaining, but yeah, sometimes.
|11.24.07 @ 1:05PM|#
oldnumberseven,
If I recall, there were more than a few incidents like that during
the Crusades, where the Christian soldiers would go through an
Eastern Christian town in the Near East and kill the residents
because they looked like Muslims.
iih|11.24.07 @ 1:05PM|#
joe:
I see. You do not know any Muslim guys? I thought that there were
plenty in the North side of MA, no?
|11.24.07 @ 1:06PM|#
"They only write islamofascist because they can not write
sand-nigger and be taken seriously. They only write islamofascist
so that the Git-R-Done crowd will be frightened and vote the way
the writer desires."
One universal truth that I have discovered is that those who
disagree with you in America will ultimately call you a racist, and
THEY will always trot out an ugly racist epithet to "bolster" their
point. That has convinced me who the real racists are.
iih|11.24.07 @ 1:07PM|#
crimethink:
Their freedom to worship as they choose is far safer in the US
than anywhere in the Middle East. And that definitely wouldn't
change under a Ron Paul presidency.
Ditto! Certainly ditto!
|11.24.07 @ 1:07PM|#
some chaps decided to throw bricks through the windows of
store keepers they thought were islamofascists one fine evening. Of
course, the store keepers were greeks.
How do you know they weren't going after those
Greek-Orthodofascists too?
|11.24.07 @ 1:09PM|#
Their freedom to worship as they choose is far safer in the
US than anywhere in the Middle East. And that definitely wouldn't
change under a Ron Paul presidency.
I completely agree. As an atheist -
It's the same old story
Everywhere I go,
I get slandered,
Libeled,
I hear words I never heard
In the Bible*
But, I've never been aasaulted or forced to worship anything I
don't believe in. It (theocracy) won't happen here.
*Paul Simon
|11.24.07 @ 1:10PM|#
The other problem with the term "Islamofascism" is that
comparing the jihadist enemy with the Nazi enemy carries the
implication that they should be fought in the same manner.
It's an attempt to steal a base for those arguing for a main-force
military response (attack, invade, capture, hold territory) as
opposed to the smaller-force, more precise, more targetted actions
against stateless terrorist groups.
That "there are no good targets in Afghanistan" strategy brought us
into Iraq, allowed the Taliban and al Qaeda to come back from the
brink of collapse in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and has more-or-less
shut down the actual war on terror.
|11.24.07 @ 1:11PM|#
iih,
I know a few - I voted for one for City Council - but not well
enough to discuss politics with them.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 1:12PM|#
iih | November 24, 2007, 1:03pm | #
...that there is no substitute for "fascism" in Islam, for why
don't they (those who coined the term) offer an alternative
solution (that does not dismiss Islam from the picture)?
Holy Christ!
They don't want to. Americans, be they socialist, capitalist,
communist, libertarian, independent, are anti-fascist. Ernest
Hemingway, the greatest American that ever lived, described himself
as an anti-fascist. Every great American that we ever learned about
in grade school, junior high, senior high, and college are
anti-fascists.
The Rabbi|11.24.07 @ 1:13PM|#
One universal truth that I have discovered is that those who
disagree with you in America will ultimately call you a racist, and
THEY will always trot out an ugly racist epithet to "bolster" their
point.
"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the
nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a
jerk, but the third time someone calls you a horse, well, then
perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."
|11.24.07 @ 1:13PM|#
joe,
How exactly is Ron Paul going to move us toward a national
Christian identity? Really, you're spewing Edwardian nonsense here.
Do you still not understand that Dr Paul's opinions rarely
translate into policy positions?
|11.24.07 @ 1:13PM|#
You gotta admit, wayne, there are certainly some people who use the term in exactly that sense.
|11.24.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Ah, thanks prolefeed, I did not see that Mr Hadley is as of yet
just pretty much a tourist who missed his return flight.
There really isn't a Republican Party in Hawaii, anyway -- the
tiny contingent of ostensible Republican legislators has been
hijacked by the center-left Linglecrats.
So (serious question) do you think this is the exact same dynamic
as the New York City Republican party and (pre-9/11) Giuliani?
|11.24.07 @ 1:15PM|#
crimethink,
I didn't say he would, just that his rhetoric about the Christian
roots of this nation and his attacks on "secularists" can certainly
create that impression. As a matter of fact, Paul seems to be
counting on exactly that perception as he attempts to court
Republican primary voters.
|11.24.07 @ 1:16PM|#
"The appendage "fascism" implies a well organized, systematic
ideology., while this is partially true, it gives it a sense of
place and nation. Appending it to "Islam" implies that anyone who
is "Islamic" is part of that "fascist state"."
I would say any muslim who behaves as a fascist; who uses the Koran
as justification for murder and barbaric acts; who believes that
the world needs to be shed of non-Muslims, can rightly be called an
Islamofascist. Fascism is not confined to Islam, but there is a
struggle between a small percentage of Muslims and non-Muslims that
cries out for categorization. Just as it might be appropriate when
you meet a loud, obnoxious over bearing blowhard to say, "my, that
fellow is disturbingly loud, obnoxious, overbearing and
insufferable", it is just so much more succinct to say, "what a
dickhead".
|11.24.07 @ 1:16PM|#
How do you know they weren't going after those
Greek-Orthodofascists too?
Those damn bearded funny-hat wearing filioque-deniers.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 1:16PM|#
wayne | November 24, 2007, 1:06pm | #
One universal truth that I have discovered is that those who
disagree with you in America will ultimately call you a racist, and
THEY will always trot out an ugly racist epithet to "bolster" their
point. That has convinced me who the real racists are.
Yep, I hope we toss a bomb on them.
|11.24.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Jihadist.
Islamist.
Violent Islam.
Theocracy.
There are plenty of terms for what you're describing, wayne, that
don't suggest misleading parallels between two very different
ideologies and movements.
The term Islamofascism was coined, and has become popular,
specifically because of the misleading parallels it creates.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Brian Courts | November 24, 2007, 1:07pm | #
How do you know they weren't going after those
Greek-Orthodofascists too?
You have me there. Maybe brick throwers did not like ouzo.
|11.24.07 @ 1:21PM|#
How do you know they weren't going after those
Greek-Orthodofascists too?
Those damn bearded funny-hat wearing filioque-deniers.
But I like their music. Shouldn't that count for something?
|11.24.07 @ 1:22PM|#
wayne,
By that definition, there are probably a few hundred
"Islamofascists" in the world. Their numbers are dwarfed by the
ranks of Muslims out to avenge US interference in their politics,
both real and perceived.
|11.24.07 @ 1:23PM|#
"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the
nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a
jerk, but the third time someone calls you a horse, well, then
perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."
Thanks for the education. You just have to call somebody your
favorite boogeyman-label THREE times and the deed is done.
One thing I can say with certainty is that I have never used the N
word on H&R.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 1:24PM|#
wayne | November 24, 2007, 1:16pm | #
...but there is a struggle between a small percentage of
Muslims and non-Muslims that cries out for categorization. Just as
it might be appropriate when you meet a loud, obnoxious over
bearing blowhard to say, "my, that fellow is disturbingly loud,
obnoxious, overbearing and insufferable", it is just so much more
succinct to say, "what a dickhead".
Are you in grade school?
WTF?
|11.24.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Crimethink,
I take it that you have not seen the video clips prepubescent
children in various Madrassas chanting "death to America", etc?
|11.24.07 @ 1:26PM|#
I guess that's why people who throw around the term "Islamofascist" are so reluctant to define it: you have to either make it such a broad classification as to provoke accusations of racism/religionism, or so narrow that it becomes hard to believe that such a small group could really be an existential threat.
iih|11.24.07 @ 1:28PM|#
I would say any muslim who behaves as a fascist; who uses
the Koran as justification for murder and barbaric acts; who
believes that the world needs to be shed of non-Muslims, can
rightly be called an Islamofascist.
What about who those who use the Qur'an to attack innocent
(non-fascist) Muslims? The "Islamofascists" (according to your
definition, while I would not agree with your nomenclature) and
Muslim-haters use the same Qur'anic verses to justify attacking the
other side. The former use the Qur'an to attack and kill
non-Muslims, and the latter use the same verses as evidence that
Muslims (anyone who admits to being Muslim ,regardless of specific
religious views) can't be anything but fascists. Both ignore the
Qur'anic counter-evidence given
here.
|11.24.07 @ 1:33PM|#
wayne,
I could show you a few video clips of Catholic school kids chanting
"Amen" to stuff that they probably won't abide by once they grow
up, too.
Also, realize that people who are really or perceivedly oppressed
often become fanatical in their religion. Once we stop messing
around in Middle Eastern politics, acting as if we have a right to
tell its people who is going to rule their nations, those madrassas
are going to have a harder sell.
|11.24.07 @ 1:34PM|#
"What about who those who use the Qur'an to attack innocent
(non-fascist) Muslims? "
I am perfectly willing to label them Islamofascists as well.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 1:35PM|#
wayne | November 24, 2007, 1:25pm | #
Crimethink,
I take it that you have not seen the video clips prepubescent
children in various Madrassas chanting "death to America",
etc?
Holy shit Wayne! Are you advocating we should take those
islamofascist children off to some sort of re-education
camp? Some place safe, where they can get the love and proper
re-education they need.
Or, should we just exterminate the brutesl? Drop the bomb, says
I.
iih|11.24.07 @ 1:38PM|#
I am perfectly willing to label them Islamofascists as
well.
I was talking about the non-Muslims who do so. E.g., many
(not all) of those behind "Islamofascism Week".
|11.24.07 @ 1:39PM|#
The problem I have with mainstream Islam is its apparent willingness to shield the fanatics in their midst.
|11.24.07 @ 1:42PM|#
"I could show you a few video clips of Catholic school kids
chanting "Amen" to stuff that they probably won't abide by once
they grow up, too."
Come back when you can show me videos of catholic school girls
flying airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Then you
will have a good foundation for an argument.
|11.24.07 @ 1:43PM|#
"I hope you're kidding. Are you voting Tancredo?"
He is not kidding, he is drunk.
iih|11.24.07 @ 1:45PM|#
I prefer this instead:
The problem I have with mainstream Islam many
Muslims is its apparent willingness to shield the fanatics
in their midst.
I reall believe that the best way to reform Muslims has to come
from within and through, Islam (and it can change, see my blog,
first article). It is human nature to resist change. So I advocate
an ideological path that uses Islam to fight Islamic extremism,
instead of fighting Islam, which has in the past (see Turkey,
Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Pakistan) resulted in nothing
but more people going underground, fueling and abetting more
extremism.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 1:46PM|#
iih | November 24, 2007, 1:39pm | #
I hope you're kidding. Are you voting Tancredo?
Take a look at a book called 'Heart of
Darkness' by Joseph Conrad.
I would never vote Tancredo.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 1:49PM|#
wayne | November 24, 2007, 1:42pm | #
Come back when you can show me videos of catholic school girls
flying airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Then you
will have a good foundation for an argument.
Are you basing this on the number of deaths per terrorist act, or
the audacity of the act?
|11.24.07 @ 1:49PM|#
"I reall believe that the best way to reform Muslims has to come
from within and through, Islam... So I advocate an ideological path
that uses Islam to fight Islamic extremism..."
I agree, but I have not seen any efforts made along those
lines.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 1:51PM|#
wayne | November 24, 2007, 1:49pm | #
I agree, but I have not seen any efforts made along those
lines.
Because you have not seen them, are they not there?
iih|11.24.07 @ 1:53PM|#
I agree, but I have not seen any efforts made along those
lines.
There are, they are not given much attention by the MSM here (not
as exciting as seeing bombs go off somewhere or Britney exposing
herself). Then there are those who really do not like Islam
altogether. They find some of those who give hope and adopt my kind
of philosophy and try to smear them to death. That is why I keep
myself anonymous.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 1:55PM|#
wayne | November 24, 2007, 1:49pm | #
I agree, but I have not seen any efforts made along those
lines.
Because you have not seen them, are they not there?
Have you sought them out, or should the mountain come to Mohammed?
So to speak.
|11.24.07 @ 1:56PM|#
If I had to break the 76 seat legislature down by actual
political affiliation, rather than stated party, it would be about
like this:
5 Communists
4 Greens
25 Socialists
30 Democrats
4 Democrats posing as Republicans
4 Centrist Linglecrats posing as Republicans
3 Republicans
1 small-l right-libertarian
And a partridge in a pear tree...
|11.24.07 @ 1:57PM|#
Sorry to interrupt the islamofascist debate, but for those who
were discussing the banned commenters issue last night, here's the
infamous Tim Cavanaugh / Gary Gunnels thread which includes
Tim's email to Gary and explanation of the ban:
Tim Cavanaugh | April 5, 2005, 4:22pm | #
I never justify myself, but since Gary is a good old boy (and I blocked a few of his hundreds of IPs solely in the hope of getting him to modify his behavior somewhat), I give you the full text of my message to him:
Actually, Gary, yes, you have been blocked. It hurts me more than it hurts you, but you've hijacked your last thread.
I'll be happy to unblock your IP on the following conditions:
No more consecutive comments. Post one, and don't post again until somebody else posts.
No more abusive language.
No more accusing anybody of not addressing the point you raised, not answering your question, etc.
No more citations of song lyrics, legal material, or anything else of more than 100 words.
No more Jean Bart, Jason Bourne, Merovingian, etc. From now on you stick with Gary Gunnels and whatever his purported biography and identity is.
No more hijacking threads in any other way.
If you agree to these terms, reply in the affirmative. If you want to argue about it, point out others who are guilty of the same stuff, or in any other way give any backtalk, then I wish you the best of luck somewhere other than Reason.
yr pal,
tim
As his intemperate private reply to me and his peevish comments here indicate, Gary has chosen not to address my concerns. Since IPs are easy to come by, he can certainly find ways to keep making comments, but I had hoped he would listen to reason. Gary's yoke is mild and his burden light, but he remains stiffnecked.
The rules around who gets to post, how the rules get enforced, what comments are out of bounds, etc., are simple: They are whatever I decide they are at any given moment. If any of you think that my way of running things is unfair, or that that it doesn't result in a remarkably open and varied comment forum, well, go post your thoughts at Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit, National Review Online, etc.
Oh, and the
not-quite-as-infamous Jennifer (temporary) ban thread here in
which Tim Cavanaugh explained, in part:
My objection to comments like the one at issue has nothing to do with federal laws or threats. Do not make comments that threaten, speculate about, express approval of, show idle curiosity regarding, counterfactually fantasize about, or in any other way entertain the idea of death or bodily injury against any other person. That goes for public figures, fellow commenters, Reason staffers, and any other individual.
As I have said before, there are no official rules around what's approved and what's not-though I am considering a general ban on anybody who bellyaches about Reason's comments-editing policy. Exercise common sense and discretion, avoid doing anything that will require me to do any extra work, and above all avoid the occasions of sin, and you'll be in the clear.
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled debate, already in
progress. :)
|11.24.07 @ 1:58PM|#
I imagine that a rifle scope is a less than ideal portal for
viewing the liberalization and democratization of a society.
What are they, still too mouthy at the checkpoints?
iih|11.24.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Beautiful. My "Christian Fanatic" hero has spoken ;-)
Ron Paul with
Nevada NewsMakers 2007.11.20 part 1
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Do not make comments that threaten, speculate about, express
approval of, show idle curiosity regarding, counterfactually
fantasize about, or in any other way entertain the idea of death or
bodily injury against any other person. That goes for public
figures, fellow commenters, Reason staffers, and any other
individual.
Does that include nuking the middle east?
|11.24.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Come back when you can show me videos of catholic school
girls flying airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Then
you will have a good foundation for an argument.
Well here is a
picture of a "Christian terrorist".
Here is another. Would you like a third? I've got
plenty of them.
Perhaps we should declare war on the Jesusfascists? Look at their
history.
|11.24.07 @ 2:06PM|#
JsubD,
That is funny! You trot out pictures of Hernando Cortes. Man, that
is relevant to the 21st century!
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 2:06PM|#
wayne | November 24, 2007, 2:00pm | #
Maybe so.
wayne's response. What a @ ^#^(!%#.
iih|11.24.07 @ 2:09PM|#
wayne,
You may want to read the book description for
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (one of
RP's reading material for Rudy).
|11.24.07 @ 2:12PM|#
Man, that is relevant to the 21st century!
That's why I gave you Tim Mcveigh as well. You remember him, don't
you. #2 on the bombing hit parade. You are attempting to judge
approx. 1,000,000,000 people based ont the actions of say, 3,000
terrorists, is my guess. What's yours, genius?
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 2:13PM|#
wayne | November 24, 2007, 2:03pm | #
Are you fantasizing about nuking the middle east?
Only on my most cynical days. Days when I read the shit chaps like
yourself write. Then I think, well, you don't really care what I
think, so I will not bother to share it with you.
But on this day, you wayne, have inspired me to say:
'Exterminate the brutes.'
brutes, islamofascists etc...
|11.24.07 @ 2:13PM|#
"Perhaps we should declare war on the Jesusfascists? Look at
their history."
Just in case you are the least bit serious: I am perfectly willing
to pursue and prosecute Christian fascists as well.
|11.24.07 @ 2:14PM|#
"But on this day, you wayne, have inspired me to say:
'Exterminate the brutes.'
brutes, islamofascists etc..."
Careful old boy, you might pop one of those swollen blood vessels
in your nose..
|11.24.07 @ 2:16PM|#
"That's why I gave you Tim Mcveigh as well. "
I am glad you mentioned him. Whatever happened to old Timothy
McVeigh? I haven't heard much from him lately. I wonder what he is
up to now days?
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 2:17PM|#
wayne | November 24, 2007, 2:13pm | #
prosecute
or persecute? I could see wayne as one of those roman guard who led
Jesus of to his crucifixion.
Dirty Frank|11.24.07 @ 2:17PM|#
Come back when you can show me videos of catholic school
girls flying airplanes
I've got some Catholic school girl videos I could show you, but
they're not exactly flying airplanes in them.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 2:19PM|#
wayne | November 24, 2007, 2:14pm | #
Careful old boy, you might pop one of those swollen blood
vessels in your nose..
Not sure what you mean by that. You will have to explain for me to
get the joke.
|11.24.07 @ 2:19PM|#
"You are attempting to judge approx. 1,000,000,000 people based
ont the actions of say, 3,000 terrorists, is my guess..."
You are apparently too agitated to read my posts, or your
comprehension isn't what it ought to be. I am NOT indicting all one
billion Muslims. I specifically said a small percentage of Muslims
(for Joe, not specifically Arab Muslims, either) are fascists.
Tim McVeigh|11.24.07 @ 2:21PM|#
Whatever happened to old Timothy McVeigh? I haven't heard
much from him lately. I wonder what he is up to now
days?
Hey, thanks for asking. I wish I had time to stay and chat, but I'm
really buried right now.
|11.24.07 @ 2:22PM|#
"prosecute
or persecute? I could see wayne as one of those roman guard who led
Jesus of to his crucifixion."
Well, I said prosecute. This is getting pretty damn funny; now I am
driving nails through the poor Christ child.
The nose joke: Alcoholics often develop large rosette noses with
blood vessles at the surface ala W.C. Fields.
|11.24.07 @ 2:27PM|#
I am perfectly willing to pursue and prosecute Christian
fascists as well.
Wow, that's what thinking people said after 9/11.
BTW, Eric Robert Rudolph had assiustance by the local Xian
populace. Let's invade North Carolina.
|11.24.07 @ 2:27PM|#
Look, I'm not trying a threadjack here, or start a pc tidal
wave, but it strikes me that the creation of the State of Israel
has done more to "fanatacize" the Middle East than anything else.
Don't get me wrong, part of the reason for this is an underlying
meme of anti-semitism in that area (making it all the more
atrocious to those folks), but it really was one of the most
boneheaded things done in this century. In fact, if you read some
of the Zionist stuff it sounds closer to fascism than "political
Islam" (all the "One Land for One People" stuff, the ethnic purity
talk, the link to a Glorious Past and Stunning Future).
I think if we were more fair minded in the Arab/Israel conflict,
from the very beginning, then wayne and other heroic people would
not be over there thesedays. We're fighting battles that were
started by that historical blunder.
*Sadly these days the usual disclaimer should be inserted
here:
1. I don't think Jewish people are inferior, nefarious, bad, etc.
In fact I think that they are culturally seldom matched and
responsible for ethical and intellectual precepts that were world
changing (for the better).
2. I think that their (and at that only a segment of that
community, another credit to them) hyper-nationalism is no morally
worse than any other, and in fact given what they faced in Europe
entirely understandable (while still nutty). I also think Zionists
in the US are doing nothing that any ethnic or religious lobby
does, just they are good at it (but again so are other ethnic
lobbies, like the Cuban lobby).
3. I don't for a second think the "Israel Lobby" "caused" us to be
in the current conflict. It was WASPish Christians who made nearly
every major decision to go to war in Iraq.
|11.24.07 @ 2:27PM|#
This thread has turned quite hilarious. I am going to smoke a cigar now, but you guys continue to argue amongst yourselves until I get back.
iih|11.24.07 @ 2:28PM|#
What about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. They are terrorists, no? And Christian-motivated. Why isn't the US fighting those terrorists, too? You see, many Muslims see these discrepancies, along with conflation of Islam and fascism, and would either (a) be easy resource for the terrorists, or (b) decide to remain moderate (most do anyways), but not too enthusiastic about supporting the WoT as the perceive it as a war on Islam. That is why, again, I say winning the WoT has to be through Islam and not against it.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 2:28PM|#
wayne | November 24, 2007, 2:22pm | #
The nose joke: Alcoholics often develop large rosette noses
with blood vessles at the surface ala W.C. Fields.
Yeah, you are a regular laugh riot wayne. If I was not drunk at the
moment I might mistake you for someone with a sense of humor. But I
am drunk, and you have not said a humorous thing on this thread.
So, all I know is you are some sort of fellow who is frightened by
muslims and think they are islamofascists and I take your
opinion seriously and say exterminate the brutes.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 2:33PM|#
iih | November 24, 2007, 2:28pm | #
That is why, again, I say winning the WoT has to be through
Islam and not against it.
You speak logic. Not aloud in current climate. Wait until global
warming has its way, then logic, may be aloud again.
|11.24.07 @ 2:35PM|#
MNG, good points all. Hindsight being 20/20, perhaps we should have given the Jews a new promised land in North America. Alas, what is done cannot be undone.
dhex|11.24.07 @ 2:38PM|#
I am perfectly willing to pursue and prosecute Christian
fascists as well.
but where are we going to find a prison big enough to hold pro-war
republicans?
infrastructure is important!
|11.24.07 @ 2:45PM|#
"Yeah, you are a regular laugh riot wayne."
Thanks... I try.
"If I was not drunk at the moment... But I am drunk..."
No? Really? I guess I just got lucky with that guess.
Abraham Lincoln|11.24.07 @ 2:50PM|#
BTW, Eric Robert Rudolph had assistance by the local Xian
populace. Let's invade North Carolina.
Been there, done that. Need another hassle like that like I need a
hole in my head.
|11.24.07 @ 2:51PM|#
"What about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. They are
terrorists, no? And Christian-motivated. Why isn't the US fighting
those terrorists, too?"
IIh, I have never heard of the Lord's Resistance Army, but I will
take your word for it. As to why we are not fighting them, maybe it
is because they have not attacked us.
"That is why, again, I say winning the WoT has to be through Islam
and not against it."
So, you agree that it is Islam that is behind the terrorism against
the west (and east)?
|11.24.07 @ 2:51PM|#
If you smoked it in less than 20 minutes, it must not have been a very good cigar.
|11.24.07 @ 2:53PM|#
"If you smoked it in less than 20 minutes, it must not have been
a very good cigar."
I only smoked half of it. I am trying to quit. Swisher Sweet, the
cigar enjoyed by gentlemen the world over.
oldnumberseven|11.24.07 @ 2:54PM|#
wayne | November 24, 2007, 2:51pm | #
So, you agree that it is Islam that is behind the terrorism
against the west (and east)?
Do you agree you are the chief cocksucker wayne, or the deputy?
|11.24.07 @ 2:55PM|#
"Been there, done that. Need another hassle like that like I
need a hole in my head."
Abe, don't you mean ANOTHER hole in your head?
|11.24.07 @ 2:58PM|#
"Do you agree you are the chief cocksucker wayne, or the
deputy?"
You seem peeved, ONS. Has the bottle run dry?
iih|11.24.07 @ 2:58PM|#
So, you agree that it is Islam that is behind the terrorism
against the west (and east)?
There is nothing in this world that does not have dual use. It
applies to Islam as it does with other religions (or
lack-their-of-philosophies). All I am saying is that the West
should work closely with moderate Muslims within and without the
West to defeat the extremists.
If you want my own belief, the Qur'an can not be taken piecemeal.
The terrorists take certain texts (very scary ones, no doubt, as in
the Old Testament) out context and ignore the verses that seem to
be in stark contradiction. To say the least, the Qur'an is a
complex legal text. The shallow terrorists and Muslim-haters take
the part that suites their purposes and, superficially and
shallowly, interpret them. Again see my second article on my blog
(click my name).
Helena Handbasket|11.24.07 @ 2:59PM|#
PEARL HARBOUR, HI, USNA-- Presidential candidate Rudy "Mitt"
Rompson was outed as a Fascist Party member after being linked to a
fundraising website promising to reopen World War II on behalf of
the Imperial Axis. His membership was proven under United States of
North America law when he failed to deny connection with the
website within 72 hours of its registration.
Early this month, the same law had nearly branded Ron Paul as an
Anarchist Party member, but he was acquitted due to the
technicality that anarchists don't form parties.
|11.24.07 @ 3:01PM|#
There is nothing in this world that does not have dual
use.
In the case of my anus, I beg to differ. It's for one thing
only.
|11.24.07 @ 3:02PM|#
"There is nothing in this world that does not have dual use. It
applies to Islam as it does with other religions (or
lack-their-of-philosophies). All I am saying is that the West
should work closely with moderate Muslims within and without the
West to defeat the extremists."
Iih, I used a cheap semantics trick in my response to you. I was
just kidding you, mostly. As I said, several times, I am not
indicting all of Islam.
I couldn\'t resist|11.24.07 @ 3:08PM|#
crimethinkIn the case of my anus, I beg to
differ. It's for one thing only.
Then how do you poop?
|11.24.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Oh, J and Sub D I actually agree...I'm not sure that anything we could do now about Israel would make up to our enemies in the Middle East, at least for decades (and I think we ought to do some of those things, because my kids will be around decades later). I think the creation of and backing of the State of Israel started much of the fire, but Arab intransgience helps keep it going...
iih|11.24.07 @ 3:14PM|#
One thing before I go to bed: What is an
anarcho-capitalist?
Unless you have a night to spare, it is someone who, roughly, is
pro 100% government nonintervention in the economy.
Wiki it. They have a good article.
Also wiki Uganda's LRA. They are not small, are behind the longest
standing atrocity in Africa, and quite very brutal.
|11.24.07 @ 3:18PM|#
Oh, J and Sub D I actually agree...
Mr. Nice Guy, you sound surprised that I'd agree with you on
something. For the record, I readilly acknowledge intelligent
points and reasoned arguments no matter the source. Those who adopt
an opposite attitude are commonly known as fools, intellectual
slackers, et al.
iih|11.24.07 @ 3:30PM|#
Iih, I used a cheap semantics trick in my response to you. I
was just kidding you, mostly. As I said, several times, I am not
indicting all of Islam.
Well, this helped me express something important anyways.
Good discussion. I have to go, too.
|11.24.07 @ 3:52PM|#
J sub D
The Oh was for enthusiasm, it strikes me that we've disagreed on
quite a bit and disagreed on quite a bit. Heck, I've even agreed
with SIV every Halley's comet ;). You know what they say, if you
let a monkey wack a typewriters keys long enough you'll eventually
get a line of shakespeare.
|11.24.07 @ 3:53PM|#
I meant "disagreed quite a bit and agreed quite a bit." I need Writin For Dummies...
|11.24.07 @ 4:02PM|#
wayne, what are you thoughts on Vietnam? Did we leave too soon?
Should we still be there?
When we left Vietnam, there was a wave of violence but, it was
temporary, and Vietnam has been making progress ever since. We now
trade with Vietnam, Americans travel to Vietnam and individuals and
businesses alike, invest in Vietnam.
I believe there probably will be violence when we leave Iraq but I
still have come to the conclusion that leaving ASAP is what's best
for the US and Iraq.
Ayn_Randian, I'm glad to hear that. I was actually worried about
reading additional Rand books after I heard Peikoff. I didn't want
to tarnish my view of 2 of my favorite books. Now I can read
Anthem.
|11.24.07 @ 4:19PM|#
here's the infamous Tim Cavanaugh / Gary Gunnels thread
which includes Tim's email to Gary and explanation of the
ban:
interestingly, tim banned me with no explanation and wouldn't
respond to my emails asking why. i must have done something really,
really egregious.
the $50 is the new $20|11.24.07 @ 4:36PM|#
Anarcho-capitalism is old and busted
Agorism is the new hotness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism
|11.24.07 @ 7:34PM|#
It's a little surprising, how little sting the "nazi" and "9/11 truther" attacks are hurting Paul. Maybe they're an internet phenomenon with no purchase in the real world. You know, like the Paul campaign used to be.
Maybe because the only places peddling them enthusiastically are
Team Red outlets, who can't say "OMG, small-government crazies!
They want to get rid of the IRS!" quite as convincingly as members
of Team Blue can. And, right now, folks just aren't paying as much
attention to what Team Red diehards are saying.
|11.24.07 @ 7:36PM|#
Maybe it has something to do with Ron Paul getting very, very
little media attention of any sort.
I hear those attacks on Chris Dodd's relationship with the banking
and insurance industries aren't getting a lot of play, either.
|11.24.07 @ 7:57PM|#
Remember the South Carolina "Firewall" Lee Atwater built in the 1980s. If a non-Establishment-Republican does too well in New Hampshire and Iowa - like Pat Buchanan in 1992, or John McCain in 2000 - they start cranking out the despicable windshield fliers, push polls, and other dirty tricks.
iih|11.24.07 @ 8:11PM|#
they start cranking out the despicable windshield fliers,
push polls, and other dirty tricks.
... and unfortunately the sheep (using Napolitano's term) have
attentive ears and are obliged to do nothing but obey, unless an
awakening happens.
|11.24.07 @ 8:11PM|#
I hear those attacks on Chris Dodd's relationship with the
banking and insurance industries aren't getting a lot of play,
either.
No, joe. THAT'S because the media is full of craven liberals who
want to help Dodd win.
You're a stubborn one, but we'll teach you.
|11.24.07 @ 8:12PM|#
Dodd would be a lot better than just about every other Democrat. Well, at least in a tie with Richardson for that honor.
|11.24.07 @ 8:15PM|#
What I've never understood is why the first couple of states are
so terribly important in these primaries. It's almost as if you're
watching a baseball game where the outcome is decided after the
first inning.
I mean, why is it so impossible for someone to lose in tiny, early
states like Iowa and NH, but then go on to win in larger states
that have later primaries?
iih|11.24.07 @ 8:21PM|#
crimmethink-
I don't know either and found it very odd when I first came to the
US and watched the 2000 elections. But I have read it somewhere
that IA and NH are representative of the entire (i.e., like taking
a poll, where the sample size is the size of the residents of NH
and IA).
|11.24.07 @ 8:28PM|#
Dodd would be a lot better than just about every other Democrat. Well, at least in a tie with Richardson for that honor.
Yup. But they'd never pick Dodd.
|11.24.07 @ 8:29PM|#
Heh, looks like at least one Thompson supporter has a "Fred's Giving Day"
hangover:
Thank you to all of those who supported Fred's Giving Day. :)
To all the decent Ron Paul supporters out there, my apologies for what I am about to say. This does not pertain to you.
A special shout out to all the Paul supporters who littered this site with phony pledges and racist e-mail addresses. Of all the supporters of different candidates out there, it was only you guys who took the time to make asses of yourselves. Only you.
Laugh now guys. Enjoy your moment.
My turn will come in a few months from now when Ron Paul's campaign is no more. You see, you can raise all the money in the world, but when you go around continually insulting and pissing off the hearts and minds that you need to win elections, you get nowhere!
That's where you'll be in a few months, and that's just what you deserve.
iih|11.24.07 @ 8:30PM|#
Dodd, is he the guy with the gray hair, or the other one with gray hair with a fly on it? No, just kidding.
|11.24.07 @ 8:32PM|#
iih,
IA and NH are both pretty homogeneous rural northern states.
Illinois is much more of a bellweather state (you've got a massive
megalopolis, a large swath of midwestern farm country, and a
sizable southern-ish area) and their primary is pretty much ignored
because it's in March.
iih|11.24.07 @ 8:35PM|#
crimethink- Yeah, it baffles me too, but I heard one of the talking heads say this a while ago.
iih|11.24.07 @ 8:43PM|#
A very respectful Cavuto and Paul:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIPFWQoryP0
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GoG6sKis-M
|11.24.07 @ 8:58PM|#
Is this the same edna whom I owe a free lunch?
tanstaafl, achaver. but yes, anytime you're in the sf bay area,
it's on me.
iih|11.24.07 @ 9:04PM|#
edna-
HA! Since it is now on you, I actually think it was dinner.
TANSTAAFD?
|11.24.07 @ 9:25PM|#
Remember the South Carolina "Firewall" Lee Atwater built in the 1980s. If a non-Establishment-Republican does too well in New Hampshire and Iowa - like Pat Buchanan in 1992, or John McCain in 2000 - they start cranking out the despicable windshield fliers, push polls, and other dirty tricks.
I don't disagree with the analysis, just two minor points
1) Would you say the same dynamic occurred with Howard Dean in '04
as the non-Establishment candidate?
2) 'Dirty tricks' again Pat Buchanan? Pat Frackin' Buchanan?!
Against a man, per wikipedia "was the first person hired as an
advisor to Nixon's presidential campaign; he worked primarily as an
opposition researcher." What happened to McCain may or may not have
been excessively dirty (vice politics as usual since Grover
Cleveland or even Andrew Jackson), but any '92 shenanigans are just
distilled 195 proof karma.
What is more interesting about what you said is that it brings up
the question:
Who the heck would be the "Establishment" Republican in this race?
For the Democrats, that's an easy question. However, as there is no
Bush in this election for only the second time in 28 years, there
doesn't seem to be anyone who's equivalent to (Sen) Clinton. Each
of the Republican candidates (including Paul) represents a portion
of the Reagan/George W. coalition, but ideologically, it doesn't
seem like anyone has a clear majority where the Establishment can
come to consensus. There would seem to be a high risk of fratricide
if one goes into the 'snake-eater' style of politics too early.
iih|11.24.07 @ 9:34PM|#
Watching that Cavuto interview, what I think the GOP "establishment" needs, and may seek, most is Ron Paul. Yes with all the seeming opposition to him by other GOPers. He would mend the image of the GOP, while not implementing much of his agenda, in their view, because the Dems and a few "dispensable" republicans would oppose him in Congress. In 4 or 8 years time, a seemingly benign substitute will emerge and things will be back on track for the extreme right wing elements of the GOP. Otherwise, it is loss-loss situation for the hawks. I think.
|11.24.07 @ 9:42PM|#
Gold prices are up $20 an ounce in the past 24 hours...now at
$820/oz.
::kicks self for not buying gold a few months ago::
So, if the US$ crashes, is this good or bad for Ron Paul?
Discuss.
|11.24.07 @ 9:51PM|#
Good point. I'm seriously wondering whether I should get up early and go to my local gold dealer Monday morning and stock up. It's probably not a good idea to buy high...but I'm not sure $820/oz is going to look "high" in a few weeks.
iih|11.24.07 @ 9:52PM|#
So, if the US$ crashes, is this good or bad for Ron Paul?
Discuss.
I know it is certainly bad for a person like me.
|11.24.07 @ 9:54PM|#
I'm torn. The dollar crashing would be terrible for me, since I don't have any real assets. But, it would vindicate Dr Paul's monetary policy positions; and saying "I told you so" to all the people I know who made fun of the gold standard might be worth it.
|11.24.07 @ 10:21PM|#
edna was banned? WTF? I've had heartfelt disagreements with edna (over Israel stuff) and never found her anything but polite...That she was banned, of all, people, finds me dumbfounded...
|11.24.07 @ 10:50PM|#
Oh, and the not-quite-as-infamous Jennifer (temporary) ban
thread here in which Tim Cavanaugh explained, in part:
Do not make comments that threaten, speculate about, express
approval of, show idle curiosity regarding, counterfactually
fantasize about, or in any other way entertain the idea of death or
bodily injury against any other person. That goes for public
figures, fellow commenters, Reason staffers, and any other
individual.
Mmm-kay. Can't talk about the death penalty, either pro or con.
Can't say that the world would be a lot better place if (insert
arsehole politician's name here) were to drop dead of a heart
attack. Can't talk about the consequences of socialized medicine
(you know, the killing people thingy). Can't do like an editor at
Harper's did, in a wonderfully sarcastic non-critical criticism,
where he repeatedly talked about how, theoretically, it might or
might not be illegal to talk about whether it was OK to speculate
about strangling Bush with one's bare hands. Etc.
Talk about a really sloppy job of wording an allegedly unwritten
policy.
|11.24.07 @ 11:01PM|#
edna was banned?
under a different nick, to be sure. but, yeah, tim gave me the
heave-ho, without notice, warning, or response. and to be fair, he
was the bartender, it was certainly his right to bounce me, this is
a private establishment. and it's my right to think that it was
done rather arbitrarily and to say i don't miss him a bit.
's ok, there's plenty of other ways to waste time on the internet.
i understand that they use computers for that now.
|11.24.07 @ 11:02PM|#
Illinois is much more of a bellweather state
Naw, Illinois is a solid Team Blue state, due to the Chicago voters
overwhelming the rural areas. Iowa and New Hampshire are both swing
states, though if they really wanted to make the first states
voting bellweathers, Florida, Ohio, and New Mexico would be better
picks.
iih|11.24.07 @ 11:03PM|#
edna- Curious, what's your view on Ron Paul, especially regarding what we've discussed about in the past... the "tribes" ;-)
|11.24.07 @ 11:21PM|#
prolefeed,
When I was but a lad, I remember Illinois going in the Bush I
column, and a string of Republican governors (Thompson, Edgar,
Ryan).
But you're right, it has swung massively blue in recent years. I'm
not sure why...the suburbs, which used to be deep Red, are the part
of Chicagoland that's exploding, but perhaps they're not as red as
they used to be. Also, the rural areas of the state have probably
been hemorrhaging population.
Kolohe|11.25.07 @ 12:13AM|#
This blog can ban anyone solely because their nick begins with
the letter "k", and still be intellectually consistent. Their
servers, their rules, no matter how arbitrary or capricious,
right?
It's a big internet, and opinions and websites, for all practical
purposes, are still free, both in the political and economic sense.
(and normally worth every penny.)
|11.25.07 @ 12:45AM|#
Curious, what's your view on Ron Paul
i voted for him in '88, i'll vote for him again in '08. is that
simple enough? ;-)
|11.25.07 @ 12:45AM|#
Their servers, their rules, no matter how arbitrary or
capricious, right?
absolutely, yes.
|11.25.07 @ 1:28AM|#
I'm not sure about that, Kolohe. Reason does often criticize private interests that attempt to squelch free speech within their domain, even while admitting that private entities are legally entitled to do so.
|11.25.07 @ 2:47AM|#
Edward:
...CCC, David Duke, and Stormfront say they can't get enough of
him. They know he's one of their own.
I've seen Edward make repeated ridiculous accusations of racism on
this blog and URKOBOLD against Ron Paul and the URKOBOLD
folks...
http://urkobold.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-wave-saturday_17.html
Did Ron Paul just release his "nigger policy" paper?
...but with this, we're shown that Edward is as lacking for decency
and as he is for honesty.
Kolohe|11.25.07 @ 2:47AM|#
crimethink-
example, if you please?
Hell, even the Muslim
brotherhood piece this past week was aggressively neutral. By
which I mean: it was a hundred or so word post with only one
sentence ("the Muslim Brotherhood has discovered blogging";
slightly snarky in subtext, but mostly non-judgmental) that was not
a quote from a linked piece.
|11.25.07 @ 8:13AM|#
Reason does often criticize private interests that attempt
to squelch free speech within their domain, even while admitting
that private entities are legally entitled to do so.
that was my point at 11:01. it's a completely consistent view and i
respect that.
The dollar crashing would be terrible for me, since I don't
have any real assets.
it has been a godsend for those of us who do export business. i
haven't seen any recent panic articles about the trade deficit
recently, how about you?
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 9:16AM|#
- Ezra Klein advocates for a Joe Biden vice presidency. Some
people call this the "silly season."
That one really is silly. Is Senator Biden actually using his own
words this year or are his old habits just slipping under the
radar?
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 9:20AM|#
This is quite silly too, on your part David:
- Bruce Falconer explains the rise of Help Save Manassas, the
anti-immigration powerhouse in suburban DC.
Even the Mother Jones page that you link to reveals that
it is anti-illegal immigration, not all
immigration. As much as the Reason Foundation may wish for any
entry into any country to become legal in the future it is not now
and there is a genuine, massive and vocal group who advocate secure
borders. I believe Dr. Paul is in those ranks?
|11.25.07 @ 9:31AM|#
"it has been a godsend for those of us who do export business. i
haven't seen any recent panic articles about the trade deficit
recently, how about you?"
The trade deficit is still running north of $50B per month. The
death of the dollar migh seem to a few, fleetingly, like a good
thing, but it is not. Pain is in the pipeline for a long time to
come.
|11.25.07 @ 9:36AM|#
The death of the dollar migh seem to a few, fleetingly, like
a good thing, but it is not.
IIRC about five years ago everyone was talking about the death of
the Euro and how strong the dollar was. I see no reason why this
situation can't reverse itself completely in five years,
either.
|11.25.07 @ 9:52AM|#
'IIRC about five years ago everyone was talking about the death
of the Euro and how strong the dollar was. I see no reason why this
situation can't reverse itself completely in five years,
either."
The Euro is crap too. The value of the dollar relative to the euro
has declined, but when you divide crap by crap, you get crap. Look
for a "currency crisis" in the European Union very soon. Probably
the EU will take some measure to drive down the euro, and all will
seemingly be well again.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 10:12AM|#
The hysteria about the trade "deficit" has just been replaced by other news-typer hysteria. One being news-typer hysteria on relative value of various currencies.
iih|11.25.07 @ 10:15AM|#
i voted for him in '88, i'll vote for him again in '08. is
that simple enough? ;-)
Excellent!
|11.25.07 @ 10:15AM|#
Kenny,
1) I'd say something different occured in 2004. For one thing, the
Democratic Establishment was not pulling for John Kerry the way the
Republican Establishment was pulling for the George Bushes in 1992
and 2000. Remember, John Kerry won Iowa to start out his run of
success, and Iowa voters are known for their independence and
contrarian-ness.
2) 'Dirty tricks' again Pat Buchanan? Actually, as I
understand it, the GOP corralled South Carolina voters not by
sliming Buchanan, so much as getting religious leaders to talk up
George HW Bush.
Who the heck would be the "Establishment" Republican in this
race? That's a good point. In a sense, every one of the
leading Republicans is outside of the party orthodoxy in one way or
another. Still, "cutting and running" in Iraq is a red line.
|11.25.07 @ 10:20AM|#
I'm not sure why...the suburbs, which used to be deep Red,
are the part of Chicagoland that's exploding, but perhaps they're
not as red as they used to be.
Suburbs usually shift towards blue as they grow.
That's why the stats about "the 10 fastest-growing counties in the
country are overwhelmingly Republican!" that get trotted out are so
misleading. Sure, they're growing. They're also turning more
Democratic. That's how Arizona came to have a Democratic
governor.
M|11.25.07 @ 10:25AM|#
To J sub D at 11:59 am yesterday (or anyone else who can
edify):
a complete Chinese fuck story
What, please, does that expression denote? I googled it to no
avail.
|11.25.07 @ 10:25AM|#
The Boston Globe Idea section today has a story about the
mythical North American Union and NAFTA Superhighway.
According to the story, Ron Paul has been flogging these conspirac
theories.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 10:42AM|#
2) 'Dirty tricks' again Pat Buchanan? Actually, as I
understand it, the GOP corralled South Carolina voters not by
sliming Buchanan, so much as getting religious leaders to talk up
George HW Bush.
The only 'dirty trick' I remember against Pat Buchanan was the Bush
ad before the Michigan primary showing Mrs. Buchanan driving around
in her Mercedes.
Hardly a dirty trick at all, but I have heard it described as one
by the Buchananoids out there.
BakedPenguin|11.25.07 @ 10:55AM|#
What, please, does that expression denote?
M - I think it's a mangled reference to "Chinese
clusterfuck"
M|11.25.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Baked, thank you. I suppose "Chinese" for its assumed immediate
local unintelligibility.
An old Cold War quip had it that the pessimists were learning how
to eat caviar with chopsticks.
Eric Dondero|11.25.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Okay, for all those wanting to know the history of
Islamo-Fascism, please watch these 8 to 10 minute videos from
YouTube (History channel), on Saddam Hussein and his links to
Adolph Hitler. It's called "Saddam and the Third Reich."
The videos explain in detail how Hitler's rise in the 1930s
inspired a young Syrian -- Michelle Afluk -- who later founded the
Batth Party in Syria and helped a young Saddam to found the Party
in Iraq, with help from Hitler's Arab henchman The Grand
Mufti.
The Batthists were rabid Arab Nationalists who wanted to establish
Pan-Arabia stretching from Morrocco to Persia. They were modeled
after the German Nazi Party, and even used Nazi symbols. In short,
Saddam Hussein was the moderd day ideological and political heir of
Adolph Hitler.
If you watch only 1 of these 8 minute vignettes, PLEASE make it
Part 7 where you will learn of the direct link from the Nazis,
through Saddam's Hitler-worshiping Uncle to Saddam himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6exIni6UtM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIbVLN4O8TI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdyE_bvaPAQ&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vUEoFv7CEY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dF0p-K7VL4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pISnBTOP0Jg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE79ajyr5u8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJdYzl3jJBk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaR1iCZoz_I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spdm0rVetBE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvFrSPfndhE&feature=related
|11.25.07 @ 11:15AM|#
sorry, eric, not impressive. saddam was a classic middle eastern
dictator-thug, of no particular ideology other than saddamism. i'm
glad he's dead, but a nazi connection? this sort of "he knew
someone who was one associated with..." b.s. does your cause no
good.
the alliance between the nazis and the contemporary arab
thugocracies is an interesting story, and does have some odd
contemporary resonance, and i'm astonished how completely the
history channel videos miss the point.
Eric Dondero|11.25.07 @ 11:20AM|#
What needs to be understood about Saddam Hussein and the
Islamo-Fascists, is that were not at all Communists. This is a
total misconception. In fact, Saddam fiercely opposed the
Communists. He was temporarily aligned with them to overthrow King
Fassel, but soon after, he and the Batthists overthrew the
Communists, and murdered them all.
This the source of the confusion from the Anti-War Libertarians.
They make claims that "Saddam was a puppet of the CIA," and "Saddam
was aligned with the US."
No, he was not aligned with the US at all. He was just opposed to
the Communists, and thus the Soviet Union.
Like Hitler, he was Anti-Communist, but also fiercely Anti-British,
and Anti-American.
Which may explain why the USS Stark was bombed by Saddam in the
middle 1980s, killing 37 US Sailors. But at the time we were still
in the grasp of the Cold War. Thus, the incident was
downplayed.
And now today, it's all but forgotten, cause the Left and the
Liberal media do not wish to portray Saddam as evil and stridently
Anti-America, else they appear to be on the same side as Bush and
those who support the War in Iraq.
|11.25.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Eric, you get your knowledge of history from the History Channel? No wonder you thought the French had low defense spending (ha!) in the early 1900s and 1930s.
Eric Dondero|11.25.07 @ 11:23AM|#
The History Channel is not known to have a "Right-wing bias." In
fact, if anything they're kind of like CNN-lite.
I'm amazed that this video was even made, and got through the
liberal media censors.
Are you asserting that the information in the video is biased or
incorrect?
Are you asserting that Saddam's Uncle Tarela Turfa was not a Hitler
worshipper, and that the Grand Muftia was not aligned with the
Nazis?
Eric Dondero|11.25.07 @ 11:26AM|#
Cesar, I get some of my knowledge from YouTube and the History
Channel.
If you want a more complete accounting of Saddam Hussein's Fascism
(and his ties to Osama bin Laden and other Arab Nationalists), I
sugget two excellent books:
Richard Miniter's "The Shadow War: How Bush is Winning the War on
Terror" - 2005, by Regnery. Miniter is a self-described
"libertarian."
And, "Saddam's Secrets" by Saddam's former Top Air Force General
Georges Sayda. Caution: This book is not for the faint of heart.
Sayda goes into gruesome detail on accounts of Saddam brutally
murdering his enemies both within and without of Iraq. This book
was a NY Times Bestseller.
|11.25.07 @ 11:27AM|#
The History Channel is not known to have a "Right-wing
bias."
I've never taken much note of the political leanings of the History
Channel. they do, however, have a conspiracy theory bias.
Are you asserting that the information in the video is biased
or incorrect?
Yes, I'm saying that making a direct connection between Nazism and
Saddam Hussein is tenuous at best, disingenuous at worst. Certain
Muslim national leaders may have had links with the Germans and
certain times, but it was more anti-British than pro-German. They
wanted independence from Britain and France. Had the shoe been on
the other foot, they would have been anti-Nazi.
Its worth pointing out, btw, that thousands of Pakistani and Indian
Muslims died for the Allies.
Eric Dondero|11.25.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Cesar, it's Sunday after Thanksgiving. I presume like most of us
libertarians you're not a football fanatic. So, what else do you
have to do today? It's too chilli for yard work.
Take 1 hour out of your day and watch this video from the History
Channel. It will forever change your view on the entire Middle
Eastern situation, and the War in Iraq.
I dare you to watch the video.
|11.25.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Take 1 hour out of your day and watch this video from the
History Channel. It will forever change your view on the entire
Middle Eastern situation, and the War in Iraq.
I've seen it on tv about ten times. It didn't really change my view
on anything, anymore than seeing their shows on aliens or UFOs
would.The History will make shows to milk everything they can out
of Adolph Hitler in between Modern Marvels
marathons.
I presume like most of us libertarians you're not a football
fanatic.
Football is OK but I'm much more in to basketball, college or pro.
Just as long as its not soccer.
Eric Dondero|11.25.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Cesar, it is a well-known fact that Saddam's Uncle Kairela Turfa
was a Hitler worshipper and self-described Nazi. Even liberal
historians say this. Everyone says this.
Pick up any biography anywheres on Saddam Hussein written by a
NeoCon, or a liberal on the left. All will give extensive coverage
to Saddam's Uncle who raised him, and how Saddam was taught to
worship Hitler and the Nazis.
You might be able to dispute some of the facts on the margins about
the Grand Mufti and/or Michelle Afluk and the Batthists. But the
information on Uncle Turfa is historically indisputable.
Eric Dondero|11.25.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Right, like I'm supposed to believe you watched the video before. Yeah, like I'm totally convinced there Cesar.
Eric Dondero|11.25.07 @ 11:36AM|#
So Cesar, if you've watched the video before, how about being
specific. Which part do you not agree with?
Is it the fact that Saddam's Uncle Tarela Turfa was a Nazi, that
you dispute?
Maybe it's the fact that the Grand Mufti was aligned with the
Nazis, and was part of Hitler's master plan to eliminate the Jews
worldwide? (This one would be really hard to dispute, since there's
film footage of the two of them meeting.)
Or, do you dispute that Michelle Afluk and the Batthists were
indeed Fascists?
Tell us, which part do you dispute? I mean you claim to have seen
the video and all?
Eric Dondero|11.25.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Perhaps, more likely, you're just uncomfortable with all the
connections here.
Ron Paul most recently has gotten into a great deal of hot water,
for accepting contributions from American Nazis like Don Black, and
the backing of David Duke and the Nazi Storm Trooper Fronts.
Libertarians are on the opposite end of the political spectrum as
Nazis. But all of a sudden, one wing of the libertarian movement -
non-interentionists (isolationists), find themselves aligned with
the Nazis as part of the Ron Paul coalition.
And coincidentally, both camps, the American Nazis and the Anti-War
Libertarians are opposed to the War in Iraq, and were opposed to
the overthrow of Saddam Hussein - another Fascist.
Hitting kind of close to home, 'eh there Cesar?
|11.25.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Is it the fact that Saddam's Uncle Tarela Turfa was a Nazi,
that you dispute?
A non-aryan Nazi? Not likely. Theres no disputing the fact he was
an Arab nationalist and a (secular) fascist, but theres a
big difference between Nazism and Fascism.
Or, do you dispute that Michelle Afluk and the Batthists were
indeed Fascists?
Ba'thism was a secular, Arab nationalist fascist political
movement. So, yes, they were fascist. They were not, however,
Nazis, or Muslim fundamentalists.
Maybe it's the fact that the Grand Mufti was aligned with the
Nazis, and was part of Hitler's master plan to eliminate the Jews
worldwide? (This one would be really hard to dispute, since there's
film footage of the two of them meeting.)
There were Muslim leaders that supported the Nazis because they
believed (naievely) it would secure independence for their nations,
which were at the time being held as imperial colonies.
There are also, however, thousands of Muslims killed on the side of
the allies in the fight against Hitler. To say that "all Muslims
supported Nazis, because Islam is just like Nazisn" is stupid.
|11.25.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Hitting kind of close to home, 'eh there Cesar?
I think the color of my skin would keep me from being a white
supremacist, but nice try.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 11:51AM|#
If you guys would stop confusing party symbols and abbreviations
for ideology then maybe you will stop confusing each other.
National Socialism is found in the Fascists and in the Nazis, as
well as in many secular middle-Eastern movements.
Calling Nazis "facists" is odd to me as they never used the bundle
of sticks as party identifier, at least not that I have seen over
the years. They were National Socialists, just like the Italian
Fascists, where the term is properly applied.
|11.25.07 @ 11:53AM|#
National Socialism is found in the Fascists and in the Nazis, as
well as in many secular middle-Eastern movements.
Thats the key word, isn't it? Secular, not Islamist. Maybe
that coming from a conservative will convince him.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 12:11PM|#
Cesar,
I would be more comfortable with the term IslamoNationalist, but it
just does not seem as catchy.
I believe the linckage is that the so-called Islamofascists are
using Islam to promote their Authoritarian National Socialist
agenda, partly through targeted attacks on civilians.
Eric Dondero|11.25.07 @ 12:12PM|#
There is no confusion here. Simply some evasiveness and blurying
of the issue by Cesar, because he's been cornered by cold hard
facts:
Fact:
The Grand Mufti was a bonafide Hitlerian Nazi, who was an Honorary
SS Captain in Hitler's Army.
Fact:
Saddam Hussein worshipped and aligned himself with the Grand
Mufti.
Fact:
Saddam's Uncle was one of the original Nazis in Iraq. He was
aligned with the burgeoning Batthist Party headed by Michelle Afluk
of Syria.
Fact:
Saddam was truly "his Uncle's son." He did everyting his Uncle told
him to do. He even murdered for his Uncle.
Fact:
Saddam worshipped Hitler as a boy in his Uncle's home.
Fact:
Saddam had a master plan of ruling the entire Muslim world from
Morocco to Tehran, and eliminating the Jews.
Fact:
Anti-War Libertarians have aligned themselves with Modern Day Nazis
in the Ron Paul coalition to oppose those who support the War in
Iraq (Against Saddam and the Fascist Batthists).
Fact:
Just this week it was revealed that Don Black, America's Number One
most outspoken Nazi has given a $500.00 contribution to Ron Paul's
campaign for President.
Fact:
Both David Duke and the Nazi Storm Trooper Front are fiercely
supporting Paul.
Fact:
Anyone who critizes Ron Paul within the libertarian or conservative
movements is savagely castigated as a "NeoCon" (modern nomenclature
for Jew or Jew Supporter.)
Starting to see the connections here??
|11.25.07 @ 12:15PM|#
Starting to see the connections here??
in fact, no.
my father idolized jfk and fdr. guess that makes me a
crypto-democrat.
|11.25.07 @ 12:34PM|#
btw, michel aflaq would have been amused at your attempts at gender reassignment. if you're going to troll, at least learn to get the names right, eh?
|11.25.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Edna, Dondero and other neocons (and no, thats not a synonym for
"jew") compare every single incident to World War II. Therefore,
they'd love to make a connection between Nazis and Islamists that
doesn't exist so they can frame the current conflict as some kind
of continuation of World War II.
This is, of course, coming from the same guy who thought France had
low defense spending in the decades before World War I and World
War II, when in reality they had one of the largest armies in the
world
x,y|11.25.07 @ 12:59PM|#
Cesar | November 23, 2007, 7:43pm | #
I generally believe in free speech 99% of the time, but when a person proves himself to be little more than an obnoxious cutter/paster (namely, "edward), I believe he deserves the ban hammer. Do I have anyone who supports my position in regards to "edward"?
This is NOT a free-speech issue. reason magazine and reasononline
are not state entities. Free speech issues are only raised when the
state or one of its agents suppresses speech.
|11.25.07 @ 1:01PM|#
This is NOT a free-speech issue. reason magazine and
reasononline are not state entities. Free speech issues are only
raised when the state or one of its agents suppresses
speech.
Yes yes, I know. Its just my personal opinion that if I
ever ran a blog I'd let anyone say anything as long as its not
spam. And Edward has entered the realm of political spam. Reason
online of course, can do whatever it wants.
|11.25.07 @ 1:02PM|#
well, i certainly believe that much of the current conflict can
be justified without resorting to this sort of hysterical
insult-to-the-intelligence stuff from e.d., so (as you well know)
it's not like i'm coming at this from the same viewpoint as you or
cesar or iih. which ought to embarrass e.d., but almost certainly
won't.
i'd almost suspect that he's a plant from saudi arabia whose job it
is to discredit the legitimate arguments for middle eastern
interventionism.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 1:06PM|#
Cesar,
The french 'defense' spending pre-WWII was blaintantly inadiquate,
combined with one of the worst implimentations of hardware in
history. It would have been perfectly adiquate if they had bothered
to enforce the arms limitations imposed on Germany, but they turned
their backs on that responsibility. Not unlike when they dropped
out of no-fly-zone enforcement over Iraq.
Also, not every comparison with WWII, or the Cival War for that
matter, is incorrect. Like comparisons of how some outlets, like
reason invoke the "quagmire" term that could easily be
substituted if they were reporting on the campaign in North Africa,
Italy or at Normandy.
|11.25.07 @ 1:09PM|#
The french 'defense' spending pre-WWII was blaintantly
inadiquate, combined with one of the worst implimentations of
hardware in history.
They spent massive amounts of money on useless, ineffective
projects. That was my point in my previous argument with Dondero.
He basically said defense spending will solve everything. I said,
no, having stealth bombers doesn't stop hijackers. Its about as
effective as the Maginot Line was against Blitzkrieg.
Also, not every comparison with WWII, or the Cival War for that
matter, is incorrect. Like comparisons of how some outlets, like
reason invoke the "quagmire" term that could easily be substituted
if they were reporting on the campaign in North Africa, Italy or at
Normandy.
World War II was a war with clearly defined objectives against a
foreign enemy. The Iraq War is not. We don't have a clear, concrete
objective. Thats why it only took four years to finish off the
German war machine, but its taking years on end to finish up
Iraq.
|11.25.07 @ 1:10PM|#
To J sub D at 11:59 am yesterday (or anyone else who can
edify):
a complete Chinese fuck story
What, please, does that expression denote? I googled it to no
avail.
I picked up that phrase approx 30 years ago while in that hotbed of
vulgarity, the U.S. Navy. It is a term for some that is not only
fucked up, but so totally fucked up that you can no longer
understand or comprehend it. A fairly good example would be our
immigration policy or lack thereof. A complete disaster, not
working, not rational, with inexplicable origins. IOW a Chinese
fuck story.
|11.25.07 @ 1:13PM|#
Heres my preferred solution, Guy. If terrorists attack us with
the knowledge or active support of a state, we overthrow the
government and kill anyone who was even remotely involved. Then we
leave.
"Mission Accomplished, Don't Make Us Come Back".
That makes more sense to me then sitting around nation building
while our troops get shot at.
|11.25.07 @ 1:14PM|#
To whoever rattled Dondi's cage, STOP DOING
THAT!
Thank you for your cooperation.
|11.25.07 @ 1:31PM|#
That is enough!!! If I hear Islamofascist one more time somebody
is staying late after school. For those who weren't paying
attention last semester -
Theocracy
Pronunciation: \thē-ˈä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·oc·ra·cies
Etymology: Greek theokratia, from the- + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1622
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by
officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy
The word's been around a long time. It is a more accurate, (and
correct), word that describes what is desired by Al Queda, Hamas,
Hizbollah, Pat Robertson, and has been achieved by the mullahs of
Iran. Please, no more newly fabricated, ill defined words.
|11.25.07 @ 1:33PM|#
The word's been around a long time. It is a more accurate,
(and correct), word that describes what is desired by Al Queda,
Hamas, Hizbollah, Pat Robertson, and has been achieved by the
mullahs of Iran. Please, no more newly fabricated, ill defined
words.
See, thats the real stumbling block. The supporters of the Endless
War can't use that word for their enemies, because it perfectly
describes many of their own supporters.
|11.25.07 @ 1:38PM|#
"Mission Accomplished, Don't Make Us Come Back".
Cesar, I couldn't agree more. "You like electricity, standing
bridges, warehouses, railyards? Don't fuck with us or you won't
have them any more."
Qadaffi (sp?) started behaving much better after Reagan had his
home destroyed, didn't he?
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 1:55PM|#
They spent massive amounts of money on useless, ineffective
projects. That was my point in my previous argument with Dondero.
He basically said defense spending will solve everything. I said,
no, having stealth bombers doesn't stop hijackers. Its about as
effective as the Maginot Line was against Blitzkrieg.
Your earlier post on this thread was not quite that clear, but we
do agree on that point.
Also, the Maginot Line was not supposed to be just a bunch of
turreted guns and infantry tunnels. The plan was to have a
substantial, effective, Armor force behind it. That portion was
never purchased. In the end, the civil engineers had built some
expensive targets for the German mechanical engineers to
destroy.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 1:58PM|#
Qadaffi (sp?) started behaving much better after Reagan had
his home destroyed, didn't he?
Yes, an example of effective foreign policy. His actions did not
seem to waiver a bit when Clinton bombed the Midol plant, but then
he straightened up a whole lot more by some event during the Bush
administration.
I 'wonder' what that one was . . .
BakedPenguin|11.25.07 @ 2:02PM|#
The supporters of the Endless War can't use [theocracy] for their enemies, because it perfectly describes many of their own supporters.
I have to admit, I used "Islamofascist" a few times, before
realizing that was its purpose.
|11.25.07 @ 2:06PM|#
Eric Dondero,
I saw that special when it first came out. There's no question, the
Ba'ath were a fascist party. But the thing is, they weren't
Islamofascist, they were Arab Fascist. It was the Arab Nation, not
political Islam, that was at the heart of Baathist ideology.
We've got Arab fascists. And we've got political Islam. But no
Islamo-fascism. The fascists aren't pushing an Islamist ideology,
and the Islamists aren't fascists.
|11.25.07 @ 2:15PM|#
For example, Eric, you might have noticed that Saddam Hussein
made a habit of jailing and killing Islamists, just like fellow
Arab fascist, Bashir Assad.
Remember Sadat? Arab nationalist - some would argue fascist - that
was assassinated by Islamists.
Or, you can look at the "Anbar miracle," where Baathist supporters
who were nationalist (tribalist, actually) ended up at war with the
jihadists in their midsts.
The Arab fascists and the Islamists (I prefer jihadists) are two
distinct, mutually hostile political movements that spend most of
their time at war. Pretty much the only time you see them working
together is when they are fighting some outside force. Hint,
hint.
dhex|11.25.07 @ 2:26PM|#
Cesar, I get some of my knowledge from YouTube and the
History Channel.
man this explains a whole fucking lot.
|11.25.07 @ 2:36PM|#
It's not that bad a piece; the influence of the Nazis on
anti-British Arab nationalists can't be dismissed out of hand; and
Saddam did deliberately set out to create a totalitarian police
state. The founder of the Ba'ath Party in Iraq was a Nazi
admirer.
It's not a conspiracy-theory documentary, even it is just a work of
popular history.
|11.25.07 @ 2:48PM|#
history is good.
history channel? less so.
dhex, remember that 90% of everything is crap. That goes for cable
TV offerings as well. The notable exception is The Oxygen Channel,
which weighs in at 99.5% crap.
|11.25.07 @ 2:51PM|#
edna,
saddam was a classic middle eastern dictator-thug, of no
particular ideology other than saddamism.
Actually, the video Dondero is flogging gets into that. Saddam was
basically a street thug that the party ideologues used for dirty
work, and ended up killing his way to the top after the ideologues
managed to put themselves into power.
|11.25.07 @ 3:14PM|#
I'm not even sure what Dondero was trying to say. That we invaded Iraq because the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem endorsed the Nazis, and Saddam's Unlce liked Hitler? Is that the earth-shattering revelation I'm supposed to have? You'd think its 2003 or something.
|11.25.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Even if Saddam was a Nazi, or fascist, or whatever, there remains the fact that he had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11...so is Dondero saying that Islamofascists weren't responsible for 9/11?
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 3:38PM|#
crimethink,
Why must this imagined 9/11 link keep getting brough up by you
folks who do not believe that we should be involved in Iraq?
The Bush administration never made that link, never even hinted at
one. Why is it an issue for you people?
|11.25.07 @ 3:43PM|#
I'm not even sure what Dondero was trying to say.
Cesar -
I didn't even read his posts, so of course I'm not sure what he was
trying to say, either. It appears one of us was wasting their
time.
Hmmm. ;-)
|11.25.07 @ 3:55PM|#
The Bush administration never made that link, never even
hinted at one. Why is it an issue for you people?
Guy Montag -
President Bush in his State of the Union address, January
2003.
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that
Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal
viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.
Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans -
this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one
canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of
horror like none we have ever known.
You can also go here and
here for more info.
Yet you post "The Bush administration never made that link,
never even hinted at one. Why is it an issue for you
people?"
|11.25.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Hmmm, I remember reading that Saddam Hussein's library was full
of books about stalin, and he consciously modeled many aspects of
his regime based on lessons he gleaned from Stalin's
experiences.
If I wanted to pigeonhole Stalin into the cluster of super-evil
dictators, I would call him primarily a Stalinist.
What a dumb thing to argue about, though.
|11.25.07 @ 4:07PM|#
J sub D,
Nicely done.
My favote is from Flight Suit Day:
The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign
against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a
source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist
network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi
regime, because the regime is no more. (Applause.)
Nope. Never even hinted.
|11.25.07 @ 4:10PM|#
Saddam's Stalin fetish is just more evidence of his estrangement
from Ba'athist ideology.
The Ba'athists were passionately anti-Communist. Saddam got his
start fighting and killing Iraqi communists, and had to go into
exile after a failed attempt to assassinate the Iraqi military
dictator, after the Ba'athists decided he was too close to the
communists.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Yea, J s D? So you make a quote with no link to 9/11 made by
anybody and present that as evidence of what?
There certainly were AQ links, but 9/11 was not one of them. Why
you must insist in circular speech? Just get to the point.
If you believe that no military action is valid unless there is a
9/11 link for the rest of our days, just say so. If you believe
that Iraq should have never been liberated because they had nothing
to do with 9/11, please say that too, although it would be included
in the previous statement.
|11.25.07 @ 4:27PM|#
Guy, The Bush administration never made that link,
never even hinted at one. Why is it an issue for
you people? (J sub D's emphasis)
That is your post, right? Or is somebody (Odin knows why)
impersonating you? If you can't get that hint from Bush's SOU
address, you likely missed out on a lot of sex.
x,y|11.25.07 @ 4:49PM|#
Cesar,
My guess was that you understood the distinction before you wrote
what you wrote. But it's a pet peeve of mine that I like to call
people out on. We need to be more judicious with our use of the
phrase "free speech." Too many people already think companies and
other non-state entities are capable of censorship that violates
the First Amendment. We need to work on a education campaign that
starts with being less sloppy when we speak and write about free
speech issues.
|11.25.07 @ 4:56PM|#
Guy,
Dondero is attempting to link "islamofascists" to actual fascists
via Saddam; but without a link between Saddam and 9/11, that
doesn't prove anything...unless you think that it wasn't
Islamofascists that attacked us on 9/11. That's why I'm bringing it
up.
Eric Dondero|11.25.07 @ 5:08PM|#
Want links between Saddam and 9/11?
Richard Miniter in his book "Shadow War: How Bush is Winning the
War on Terror" has an extenisive appendix in the back which
documents over 40 instances of direct links between Al Qaeda and
Saddam. Most are not well-known and publicized, but a few are, like
Saddam harboring two Terrorist Training camps in Iraq before 9/11 -
Salman Pac and Answar Al-Islam.
Both camps were far more insidious and much more strongly
connnected directly to Bin Laden than the liberal media
reported.
Answar Al-Islam was pretty much "Al Qaeda in Iraq" pre-9/11. The
media during the invasion in 2003 brushed it off, cause they said
"it was located in Kurdish controlled Iraq, and couldn't have been
linked to Saddam."
Only half true. Yes, they got the geography right. It was located
in Northeastern Iraq. However, it was in a small region, completely
controlled by Saddam NOT BY THE KURDS!!
Salman Pac, 20 miles south of Baghdad hosted Al Qaeda fighters all
throughout 1999.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245