The St. Petersburg Times is running a series on the Church of Scientology that has some pretty eye-popping allegations, particularly with regard to Church leader David Miscavige. For those who have long argued that the Church is a cult (most recently in Europe) the exposé will likely reinforce their views.
The newspaper reports bizarre and abusive conduct by Miscavige, including hitting high-ranking officials and forcing them to play a game of musical chairs (where the losers allegedly are banned from the Church).
The Los Angeles Times also has a story alleging rampant corruption in the Church.
The series on Scientology is something of a surprise. Many reporters that I have spoken with over the years are privately reluctant to do Scientology stories because of the Church’s aggressive reputation in responding to press. The Church has a history of suing critics and pursuing members who have joined the movement opposing Scientology. This has led to recent lawsuits ( and here) and complaints. Recently, Scientology also was barred from making edits on Wikipedia because of what it viewed as a pattern of misleading or false changes on sites referencing the Church.
For the first part of the three-part series, click here.
For the second part of the three-part series, click here.
This is a live action Milgram experiment. After seeing the picture of the Admiral I now know what a living corpse really looks like!
So does this surprise you? What is that religion that John Travolta is a member of again? Thought so.
If we let people play the lottery (State run no less), how can we really stop them from choosing a religion? What’s it to me if someone give money to Scientology, the lottery, or the Catholic Church? Look at Evander Holyfield, he tithed away over $20 MM and is about to have his house foreclosed on. Is he not in a destructive cult?
In Europe, there is no separation between Church and State. Competing religions cost the State money. So, they are not looking after people when persecuting rival religions or heresies.
I can’t shake the idea that this is exactly like the US culture of torture, in every way.
There is no Separation doctrine among the member states, but by the terms of the Charter the EU is a secular organization. Only five member states have state religions – England, Denmark, Cyprus, Greece and Malta. Catholicism is NOT the state religion of Italy, no matter what the Pope thinks.
Well budda.
aren’t all religions cults to one degree or another? they use pretty much the same methods to attract and keep adherents. One promises an after life, another promises community in this life. None can actually deliver guarantees, thus, they use faith as the catch. They are all exclusive to their own dogma but dogma is what attracts one while it repels another.
scientology may use more modern, advanced techniques to gain adherents, just like mormon did and still does and like LDS, scientology was invented in modernity, with no history of undocumented and unprovable set of miracles.
I can figure out why some people are presbyterians and others are catholic and others are jews. mainly because their parents and grandparents are/were and we trust what we were inculcated with at an early age.
I don’t know what the advantages are to being a scientologist. are there any?
“I don’t know what the advantages are to being a scientologist. are there any?”
Hollywood connections and an empty bank account?
Buddha and GWL,
Didn’t you read the article? The one guy had Captain’s bars! For the love of god people, we are talking Captain’s bars here–and you don’t see the advantage? Thank god one of us here is “clear”!
Buddha writes:
Hollywood connections and an empty bank account?
those hollywood people have a VIP center where they are secluded from the riff raff.
the empty bank account is true. they approached me in the late 70′s and it was a weird time for me and so I went to their center in Santa Monica and took a test. it was not unlike your average Cosmo test, and so I was pretty amused. Then they told me what they could do for me. Get me clear. Get me past the places where I was blocked. Fortunately for me, Id’ already been approached by the est people a few years before so I was familiar with the high cost of enlightenment. My preference was to spend money doing things that made me happy, and enlightenment would have to either come from those things or be free.
my mom had a woman from east la who used to clean her house. when she heard me talking about est and that I thought I might want to try it, this was before I found out what it cost and that they didn’t let you pee for 18 hours, she set me straight. “you white people,” she said, “have way to much time and money to spend thinking about your feelings. If you had to work to support yourself and your kids and save so that they could have a better life and maybe move to a better neighborhood so that they could go to better schools you’d realize that this is a rip-off to make you feel better about what you already have.”
and she was right.
Organised religion is poison. But I’m grateful to it at least for starting me on the road to atheism.
GWLawSchoolMom said; aren’t all religions cults to one degree or another?
Exactly!
People can, and will, believe in whatever they want to believe. They should be able to do so; even if it will hurt them in the eyes of others.
The EU should stay out of it.
Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac?
–He stayed up all night wondering whether or not there really was a dog.
jim byrne:
“People can, and will, believe in whatever they want to believe. They should be able to do so; even if it will hurt them in the eyes of others.”
*********
This is the muddle-headed thinking that leads to disastrous and preventable social problems. People should not be free from criticism for what they believe. Indeed, that is precisely what leads to outside-the-norm actions based on those beliefs. Beliefs are our attempts to make sense of the world around us. To that extent, they shape how we perceive the world. That militant Islam believes we are infidels deserving of death leads to certain consequences of which we are well-acquainted. That NAMBLA accepts child sexual abuse as a norm is a belief that has dire consequences when acted upon. Beliefs are like everything else we humans possess–subject to testing by our collective intellect and criticism if proven foolish or ill-advised. To tolerate sacred cows means only that we must deal with the inevitable manure that is sure to emanate.
Mespo,
Friends don’t let friends Vote Republican.
GWLSMom,
I know a farmer Scientology took to the tune of 2.3 million over the course of 6-7 years. And unlike the movie stars, that was every dime he had.
M72,
I know we all have bad days, even the brightest among us. Blue Monday’s, ‘ol Blue Mondays…
mespo,
People should not be free from criticism for what they believe.
I wasn’t suggesting that anyone refrain from speaking their mind.
Indeed, that is precisely what leads to outside-the-norm actions based on those beliefs.
You mean like gay marriage?
Outside-the-norm thinking is what breeds change. Just because society doesn’t currently accept something today, doesn’t mean they won’t accept it tomorrow. -If nobody pushes on what is currently consider “the norm” nothing changes.
NAMBLA, and radical Muslim thinking, I hope, will never be accepted. However, 100 years ago, the same most likely was said in many parts of this country about interacial marriage.
I don’t think religion just rips off the rich either. Religion goes for the widow’s mite and widow give it. The 700 club asks for people’s cancer money. I trace religiosity to an authoritarian culture which ensnares rich and poor alike. With a combination of belonging, a place to use one’s skills for good or ill and a set of rules that are supposed to help make sense of things, together with a society which values unquestioning obedience to leaders, it’s no wonder it’s all over. Authoritarianism runs very deep in this society and it finds expression both in religion and the secular.
“NAMBLA, and radical Muslim thinking, I hope, will never be accepted. However, 100 years ago, the same most likely was said in many parts of this country about interacial marriage.”
*************
My point exactly, Jim. Beliefs have consequences and Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute died in a direct confrontation with rationality and compassion thanks to the late Mildred Loving. Your argument is likely to go the way of racism, theocracy, and child sexual abuse, or at least I hope so. Do you really want to be on the side of tolerating that which is stupid, perverse, or irrational?
“Do you really want to be on the side of tolerating that which is stupid, perverse, or irrational?”
As long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others; YES!
Very emphatically YES. I will tolerate people being stupid, perverse, and irrational.
Isn’t that the essence of First Amendment rights in a free society?
mespo727272
1, June 22, 2009 at 9:38 pm
jim byrne:
“People can, and will, believe in whatever they want to believe. They should be able to do so; even if it will hurt them in the eyes of others.”
*********
This is the muddle-headed thinking that leads to disastrous and preventable social problems. People should not be free from criticism for what they believe.
—————-
Until their thinking translates into action that is illegal is this not the essence of free association and speech at the citizen level? The problem as I see it is that organized cults that can gain legitimacy through their declaration as a religion (I’m think all ‘religions’ here) is supported implicitly and explicitly by tax breaks and other government derived benefits. That should stop.
I’m with Jim Byrne. If we outlaw Scientology what’s next? Spining rims? Wearing your jeans 5 sizes too big and hanging below your ass? Having lot’s and lot’s of kids one can’t afford and treats like garbage?
“Gangsta” behavior has been marketed by major corporations for a couple decades now. No one’s trying to outlaw Sony Corp. or imprison Russell Simmons (Hell that scum – bag blogs on Huffington Post)Lots more human wreckage there than from Scientology. And what time line are we working with here? Certainly the Catholic Church tortured and murdered thousands more than Scientology.
These are mere growing pains for the one true faith.
So give the miserable retards who waste there money and lives on Scientology a break. Your overlord Xenu still has to make his payroll this month. End communication.
Jill writes: don’t think religion just rips off the rich either. Religion goes for the widow’s mite and widow give it. The 700 club asks for people’s cancer money. I trace religiosity to an authoritarian culture which ensnares rich and poor alike. With a combination of belonging, a place to use one’s skills for good or ill and a set of rules that are supposed to help make sense of things, together with a society which values unquestioning obedience to leaders, it’s no wonder it’s all over. Authoritarianism runs very deep in this society and it finds expression both in religion and the secular.
absolutely. if you watch the christian tv networks, my personal favorite is the TBN, they have this woman with pink hair who cries so exquisitely when she talks of jesus and his love for her and her love for him….. anyway, benny hinn who is the ultimate in the blending of hypnosis and faith, he calls the money he extorts “love offerings”
each evangelist has his own lingo for this and typically those who give most, the highest percentage of what they have are the poorest, who go without medication because they believe that the more they give the more they will get from god in return. many of these evangelists preach something called abundance theology.
its pretty sick and twisted, I think.
mespo727272 – “This is the muddle-headed thinking that leads to disastrous and preventable social problems.”
I agree. Mindless, relentless “positivist” thinking about every issue that encourages people to go for anything so long as they feel good about it totally eliminates critical thinking from the process. How many people are sitting on the curbside in bankruptcy because no-one felt it was their place to advise them against that disastrous church donation or even just that flawed small business launch?
saying “go for it” to people is lazy and a cop out. It’s even callous to some degree. It’s not their money that’s being blown to the four winds so why appear negative? Sometimes it’s hard to give advise people don’t want to hear.
spellcheck: “give AdviCe to people” – not “give advise people”
jim byrne 1, June 22, 2009 at 11:15 pm
“Do you really want to be on the side of tolerating that which is stupid, perverse, or irrational?”
As long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others; YES!
—-
Well there’s your problem right there. It’s two fold.
First, stupidity and irrationality almost always screw up something which usually means some non-stupid rational person is the victim although moron on moron crime is not new or unheard of.
Second, there is problem and quite simply it’s you if that is truly how you feel. Are you familiar with the acronym GIGO? Willful stupidity and irrationality are called “ignorance”, Jim, no matter what your reason for embracing it. A decision, ANY decision, is only as good as the information it is based upon and the critical evaluation skill of the maker. The best thinkers in the world can’t make good decisions with bad information. Bad information is a bad place to start unless you want bad results. While I appreciate seamus’ take on the issue of Scientology (although I disagree as most religions were started in earnest only to be later abused and Schillentology was designed from inception as a scam), your proposition is the first step to making the film “Idiocracy” a reality (more so than it already is). Ignorance is never a good choice. It’s a form of self-deception. It’s certainly nothing to be proud of either. If you found this insulting, well, you did to yourself. Although you didn’t use the word itself, you did indeed describe yourself as a proponent of ignorance. Such is the price. I now return you to the regularly scheduled program already in progress, “Ow! My Balls!” brought to you by Brawndo – It’s got electrolytes!
jim byrne:
““Do you really want to be on the side of tolerating that which is stupid, perverse, or irrational?”
As long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others; YES!
Very emphatically YES.”
************
That’s like advocating free lance dynamiting in Manhattan, but only so long as it doesn’t affect others.
GWL,
Thanks for passing the praise of Benny Hinn. I hadn’t heard of him, (which has been my supreme loss). Until now I didn’t realize I could get such really neat stuff such as:
Top 10 (on his site and maybe the universe)
1. Gold Plated Dove & Globe Necklace & Lapel Pin Set
2. Venezuela Crusade Highlights DVD
3. PATH Wellness Manual, plus 2 CDs
4. Heaven CD by Benny Hinn
5. Priestly Blessing Plate
6. Names of God bracelet
7. Dreams and Visions CD
8. The Ark of the Covenant
9. Sword of the Word Letter Opener
10. Velvet Praise, CD
WOW! I think that man in Arizona should have bought number 9 to have a more sucessful suicide.
lottakatz:
“Until their thinking translates into action that is illegal is this not the essence of free association and speech at the citizen level?”
***********
Sooner or later, thinking always translates into action. It has to since it defines how you see the world. My point is not that you must refrain by force of law from thinking stupidly, but that you enjoy no immunity from public criticism when you do.
mespo,
Seconded.
Say what you like but be prepared for the slings and arrows should you say something stupid.
Praise the Lord, now pass the basket. The Lords word is never done and remember that by your words, you shall be known. We have the word of the Lord to get rid of this evil and it takes money to do the devils work. Rid yourself of such things, free your soul, make your life like that of Jesus and live like he did. Send me all of your money and if you cannot afford all of your money, send what you can. We have the word to get out and this coats money.
Now let us Pray In Jesus’ name: Jesus, I see someone holding a large sum of money. They are withholding your work until we receive this love offering, you work cannot be filled to its fullest. We ask that you touch them, yes, I see them like you do, one of them, yes, one is wearing a white shirt. And you know Jesus, we cannot do your work with out that money that you have promised that you’d send. Now Get out your checkbooks, write your check, send it now. Oh yes lord through your gifts we are now able to accept Credit Cards and Bank Cards. Call our toll free number and pledge your gift to free your soul now. The Number is, don’t wait. If you cannot call now, our prayer lines are busy, just send it to, yes to our Post Office in the Caymans and we will be able to start with any amount you send. The Lord loves a Cheerful Giver, be Cheerful. and we pray in our brothers name, Amen.
tolerate; (a)to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction; (b) to put up with.
advocate; one that supports or promotes the interests of another.
Ok…I guess it’s time for me to stop tolerating something “stupid” and “irrational”.
I’m gonna’ start with something obvious:
To tolerate is not the same as to advocate. I should not tolerate mespo’s insinuation that it does. If mespo thinks that tolerating what someone does is the same as advocating what someone does; that would be stupid and irrational.
Well Jim, the insinuation was yours. Just like your implication now is that tolerance for stupidity is good because “tolerance” is virtuous trait. Well that supposes that tolerance is the answer to everything, doesn’t it? The answer for ignorance is education, Jim, not tolerance. Just like the answer for murder is incarceration, not tolerance. Your sophistry illustrates you have some education, yet you’d still tolerate/advocate ignorance as long as “it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others”. By definition, the ignorant will be ignorant of their rights and yours as well which will eventually led to conflict over said rights. You’re exhibiting some fine circular logic.
Buddha,
Perhaps you should reread my comments.
I will tolerate many many things that I think are stupid, perverse, and irrational. -That doesn’t mean that I endorse or advocate such.
Mespo said that thoughts become actions; and wants to be the “thought police”. God help us!!
Mespo’s statements would suggest that we should bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts. -After all, we can’t have people thinking or talking to others about such things. Mespo said “sooner or later, thinking always translates into action”.
This whole “Freedom of speech” thing must go too. If we don’t silence them, their thoughts will turn into actions.
I almost can’t believe that I am reading such ignorant, un-American rhetoric from such elitists. You think anyone who does something you don’t like, or lives their life in a manner, or takes action in a way that you think is stupid, perverse, or irrational should be prevented from doing so.
Well damn it, I disagree. I, and many that have come before me, have sacrificed our liberty, our freedom to pursue our own happiness, and some even gave their lives…so that people like you could have the freedom to express your opinions. I also sacrificed so that those stupid, perverse, and irrational people you dislike so much, can have the freedom to be stupid, perverse, and irrational…as long as there choice doesn’t interfere with your rights.
Well Jim, perhaps you should read your comments too. Or you can continue to be a propaganda apologist and ignorant by association if not actually ignorant yourself – a matter now open for debate by your own statements in support of stupidity. You’re doing a fine job impeaching your credibility.
As to your last bolded statements, if you want to start throwing around the term “Un-American”, you can end the “discussion” right now and go fornicate yourself and your little avatar, troll. Or pay the price when you get savaged later. Your choice. Since you’re backing stupidity as an acceptable social model, I’m not holding my breath now that you’ve revealed what you really are.
Jim Byrne,
Please continue to contribute your thoughts to this blawg. I have never always agreed with everything you have written, but I have never considered you a “troll”.
For the last week or so this blawg has rolled along nicely without a lot of long, irrelevant copy/pastes and I like that.
Thanks.
FFLEO,
If it’s any consolation, until the “Un-American” comment, I’d considered him trollish but not a troll. That, however, was pure troll-dom. I’ll withhold final judgment until I see his reaction, but so far I have to side with Mike that this guys isn’t an honest player.
Buddha,
You’re right! I am showing my true colors, as are you.
I consider those that want to deprive others of their personnel choice to do something stupid, perverse, or irrational (as long as the choice does not interfere with the rights of others) to be un-American.
The ability to make stupid, perverse, and irrational choices is at the very heart of FREEDOM. Restricting people from having the ability to make those choices is tyranny.
“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly: `Tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to set a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.” –Thomas Paine
Go ahead; despise my message of freedom. I, unlike you, stand in the company of Jefferson, Madison, and Payne. I stand with people that would/have put their own lives in peril, so that they may protect the freedom of others.
Your idea of stupid, may be my idea of art.
Your idea of perverse, may be my idea of foreplay.
Your idea of irrational, may be my idea of exploration.
Who are you to decide for me, and to suggest that society should limit/restrict my free choices, that interfere with no one, because you consider them to be stupid, perverse, or irrational?
The opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds.
You really don’t understand the difference between tolerating and advocating, endorsing, backing, or supporting; do you?
You want to go get a tattoo; feel free to do so. I think its stupid. While I have just tolerated your choice, I sure didn’t advocate your choice. Did I?
Evangelicals hurt our nation many times by voting according to their authoritarian ministers’ leanings- which tend to always favor eye-4-eye problem solving and of course Republicans.
It worked for Hitler and it worked for Neo Cons. Religion made Nazism falsely legitimate while it conducted it’s cleansing operation. Ditto for Bush/Cheney’s preemption, occupation, torture, and domestic subversion.
Christians harmed this country deeply-perhaps permanently-by voting a dictatorship into office not once but twice. That collective act put this nation where it is now and permanently colored it murderer, torturer, and thief. Yes, I’d attempt to stop someone attempting suicide. Yes, I fully support an absolute separation of civilization and religion so the nation doesn’t have to worry about another suicide attempt at the hands of authoritarian seekers.
There’s a reason for the Separation of Church and State.
It harms.
http://www.light-to-dark.com/t_equals.html
FFLEO,
Thanks for your encouragement.
I’m glad you don’t always agree with me. If everyone on this blawg agreed with everything I said, it would be a waste of time for me to say it. -That is, unless I was so insecure that I would need my ego stroked.
FYI – I consider any effort that advocates to deprive the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights to be un-American. The right to make stupid irrational choices is, I believe, one of those protected rights.
Jim Byrne:
I agree with you, as long as your stupidity dosent inflict a negative outcome on me you are free to pursue whatever it is that floats your boat. within the confines of the law.
You will find on this blog that many champion individual rights but when you really get down to the core they tend to be of a totalitarian mold/mindset. And the funny thing is they think they are being supportive of individual rights.
It is rather fascinating but understandable as most progressives are anything but.
I believe in free speech and I believe in freedom of thought, philosophy and worship. However, what is a society to do about con games that use religion as a cover for their scam. This is Scientology. I’ve actually heard hours of L.Ron Hubbard on the radio in NYC, in the 50′s, debating Scientology with Sci-Fi
writers Fred Pohl and Lester Del Rey. They had all known each other for years being in the same profession and they nailed him for the scam he was trying to perpetrate. A common topic of discussion in the 50′s was how to set up a money making enterprise as a religion to avoid taxation and scrutiny. Scientology was the most successful of the scams. Do the proponents on this thread of a hands off policy towards it, really think that con games are protected speech and thought?
While I agree that often it is hard to differentiate between most religions and scams, in the case of Scientology I think it is easy and necessary. GWLSM referred to EST, which though non-religious was another scam. Back when I was in practice as a psychotherapist I had 3 patients who had been through it, ripped off by it and were in worse psychological shape from the experience. I suppose in some people’s minds this type of charlatanism should be protected from government
interference and I sympathize with that view. However, while both Scientology and EST are scams, as are many seemingly mainstream religious money drives, Scientology reaches beyond the pale and should be treated as the con game it is.
Buddha et al.
I look to this blawg for reasoned debate and legal meaning to current events. I am here to learn more than to contribute.
“It is rather fascinating but understandable as most progressives are anything but.”
IS,
And with the use of things like torture, rendition, The Patriot Act (supported by Democrats too but proposed by Bush),
a preemptive war and fighting against the right of a woman’s choice, conservatives are believers in freedom? I think not.
If you want to check the history, past and current, the belief in civil liberties is not one owned by the left, right, center, or political party. That you state it as such shows your bias and your inability to recognize that totalitarianism isn’t about the political philosophy/theory, it’s about people’s will to power. No political side has a monopoly on purity and those who think so are ultimately blind.
Mike S.,
I’ve been thinking along the same lines and also about what Jim has been saying. When I read the article I saw behavior that was clearly illegal. Beating people and stealing money is illegal. It’s no different than the Catholic church and child molestation.
To me the doctrins of both Catholicism and Scientology do not make sense. People should be able to freely criticize religious ideology. They should also practice it until behavior crosses the line into illegal.
I’m with lottakatz that tax exemption does legitimize these organizations. I also think the state has been way too reluctant to take aggresive law enforcement action when it is clearly warrented. In Toledo, the police protected the Catholic church from charges of abusing children, litterally for decades. Had the police/prosecutors done their jobs, the abuse of children could have been stopped in its tracks and so much pain and suffering would have been prevented.
To my way of thinking, there’s no banning stupid. I know I’ve done plenty of jaw dropping stupid acts myself (and I’m sure it will happen many more times!), but the line is crossed when the law is broken. These people were beaten. There should have been charges and hard time, end of story. Financial fraud, same thing. Being a church isn’t a license to break the law, or at least it sure as hell shouldn’t be.
“Being a church isn’t a license to break the law, or at least it sure as hell shouldn’t be.”
Jill,
My thoughts exactly. The problem is the courage of governments to proceed against them. It’s sadly ironic how blatantly government can disregard some rights, like torture and rendition, and yet treads so softly when it comes to organized religion.
Mike Spindell:
I dont have a problem with abortion, I did not think the Patriot Act was a good idea at all. Rendition and torture arent to good either.
The entire history of progressive philosophy has been one of totalitarianism. From Marx to Saul Alinsky to whomever the progressive de jour is today. They limit free speech and other freedoms, they are agressive, in short they are thugs.
They cannot win in the ballot box so they use the courts or other forms of intimidation. They have no belief in anything except the certainty of their knowledge that their beliefs are right and must be implemented no matter the cost.
they need to change the name to regressives.
MS:
if Scientology is a scam then prove it and shut it down. Personally it sure seems like it to me. But there is some amount of personal responsibility that goes along with being a member or joining in the first place.
The government cannot and should not protect every weak willed stupid idiot from themselves.
With the advent of the Internet there is no excuse to be ignorant of anything. And the same can be said for public libraries. If a person gets scammed oh well, I guess he wont be as gullible the next time out.
I.S.,
I have noticed that progressive movements often do go totalitarian. This same is true of the conservative movements. Reading the article, I was very much struck by how obediant to authority people were. Why did they go along with it? Why didn’t they walk out and report things immediately. It’s just like our torture program. So denigrate progressives all you want, if you have the courage to acknowledge these same tendancies play out amongst conservatives as well. And have even more courage to examine why this pattern repetes itself over and over in almost every area of our society. Why do you think that is?
Mike S.,
“It’s sadly ironic how blatantly government can disregard some rights, like torture and rendition, and yet treads so softly when it comes to organized religion.”
In one way it’s a contrast. But really, the authorities are condoning the same behavior in each case. It’s very scary.
Jill:
please tell me a conservative society that has gone totalitarian.
Actually the term Liberal was highjacked by the progressives/totalitarians.
No, Jim. All that was proven is that you’ll use the slander “Anti-American”.
That’s pure Neocon troll trash Jim.
And while I do have to tolerate you, I can still tell you to go fornicate yourself once you’ve gone to “Anti-American.” Welcome to Freedom of Speech, Jim. I’m as American as you are and well that’d make you the elitist, wouldn’t it? The very selection of words shows you somehow feel superior in your citizenship – a feeling that is factually incorrect in addition to showing some lovely character, ah hem, traits. Because “Anti-American” is pure propaganda language, Jim. It’s fascist anti-liberal smear in the Rove mold. A Neocon word of choice. If your attempt is demonization, it’s painfully transparent. What’s next? Some more of the tin hat birther nonsense? Some semi-informed circular logic? Are you going to call for a return to Freedom Fries? But don’t worry.
I support your decision to be a negative example. It’s your choice.
I’ve said some pretty wild things in here, but I’ve never called someone I openly revile like Cheney “Anti-American”. A treasonous traitor for certain, but never “Anti-American”. That’s pure Neocon jingoistic trash.
IS,
Germany. Very conservative before WWII.
BIL:
“I’ve said some pretty wild things in here, but I’ve never called someone I openly revile like Cheney “Anti-American”. A treasonous traitor for certain, but never “Anti-American”. That’s pure Neocon jingoistic trash.”
isnt the very essence of being a treasnous traitor anti-American? Isnt a traitor to ones country being anti-country? How does one be a traitor to ones country and not be anti-country?
I suppose treason is in the eye of the beholder, Count Von Stauffenberg was a patriot but was considered a traitor. But in the sense you mean it seems that being a traitor would have to go hand in hand with being anti-American.
Please explain.
Ditto to Buddha,
So now that we’ve got that out of the way I was wondering if you were able to understand why people, both left and right turn to an authoritarian mindset. I noticed you didn’t address this issue.
BIL:
do you mean the Wiemar Republic or do you mean the National Socialists?
the NAZI’s were definitely leftists, in fact they and the communists came to an agreement that the comms would be called leftists and the NAZI’s right winger/facists so that they would not be confused. The NAZI’s are in fact socialists. Had Hitler died prior to 1939 he would have been a hero of the left and hailed as one of the greatest Germans of all time. His greatest mistake was to invade the Soviet Union, that gave impetus to Roosevelt and his merry band of reds to enter the war to bail out Stalin and his socialist “utopia”. This is purely my opinion and I have done no research to back it up although I do believe it would make a fine premiss for a book and there is some historical evidence that does suggest this.
Namely the number of communists or communist sympathizers in Roosevelt’s administration and the climate of the time-namely the infatuation with communism by the intellectuals of the day.
Jill:
“So now that we’ve got that out of the way I was wondering if you were able to understand why people, both left and right turn to an authoritarian mindset. I noticed you didn’t address this issue.”
I don’t know any “conservative” societies that have gone totalitarian. Conservative meaning – individual liberties, free markets, etc.
But to hazard a guess as to why societies degenerate into totalitarianism I would say that ultimately they loose a sense of personal responsibility and self determination. They look to government to satisfy their needs. Once they are dependent on government it is over.
Governments are able to do this because who doesn’t want the least among us taken care of? And that is why altruism is such a slippery slope. So there you have it, social welfare programs eventually lead to totalitarianism.
So I.S., why do people, both left and right follow totalitarianism? I see you still haven’t addressed this issue and I would like to know your opinion on the matter.
“Augusto José Ramón Pinochet[1] Ugarte (25 November 1915 – 10 December 2006) was a Chilean army general and head of state. He was the Commander in Chief of the Chilean army from 1973 to 1998, President of the Government Junta of Chile from 1973 to 1981 and President of Chile from 1974 until the return of democratic rule in 1990.
He studied to become an officer and was a professor of the War Academy in Chile.[2] At the beginning of 1972, he was appointed General Chief of Staff of the Army. In 1973, he was appointed as Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army by socialist president Salvador Allende.[2]
On 11 September 1973, with active support from the CIA[3][4], Pinochet, who twenty days prior had been appointed, led a coup d’état which put an end to Allende’s government, and, along with the Navy, Air Force and Carabineros (a national police force), established a military dictatorship. In December 1974, the junta appointed Pinochet as President by a joint decree, to which Air Force General Gustavo Leigh disagreed.[5] From the beginning, the government implemented harsh measures.[6] According to the 1993 Rettig Report, over 3,200 people were killed[7], while (according to the 2004 Valech Report) at least 80,000 were incarcerated without trials and 30,000 subjected to torture[8]. Another 200,000 people went into exile, particularly in Argentina and Peru…” (wikipedia)
please explain why Pinochet had to take over the government in the first place.
Also why did he give up power?
IS,
No, Anti-American is not a component of treason. Treason is defined as crime against the nation or against national interests in the simplest of terms.
Treason is defined by Art. III, Sec. 3 of the U.S. Constitution as “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”
Anti-American, by contrast, is an interesting phrase indeed. It has no use but slander. During the run up to the war, recall it was a favorite slander of the Bush enablers. Here is just one example:
If you are a citizen, you are a citizen and that is that. There are no “levels of citizenship”. It’s like being pregnant. You are or you aren’t. The use of the term Anti-American has one purpose and that is to demonize the opposition in the crudest form possible. It also speaks to state of mind instead of action, another easily refutable fallacy. Unless they declare it verbally/in writing or physically attack the country, you cannot say anyone is “Anti-American” unless you’re psychic. For it is possible, indeed likely, that Dick committed treason all the while thinking he was working for U.S. interests, an incredible self-rationalization for his greed, but I’m pretty sure he actually believes he’s a good guy despite the huge mountain of evidence otherwise. “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” No, the phrase “Anti-American” is a propaganda landmark, but it has nothing to do with the crime of treason other than an afterward, a footnote as to motive of the individual, but it’s not a component element of the crime proper. The only other uses of “Anti-American” are nefarious fascist smear.
IS,
He didn’t “have to”. Pinochet “wanted to”. There was a choice.
Bil:
Aaargh… Troll alert! You’re feeding the monster! Just ignore I.S. …
I.S.
You are very dishonest in your “arguments”. You get your original question answered, then you simply move on to some other thing without addressing the questions asked of you. This is a classic technique of someone who can not or will not respond with integrity. I will let your intellectual dishonesty speak for itself.
“I can still tell you to go fornicate yourself once you’ve gone to “Anti-American.”
Tell me Buddha…Do you know why quotes are used? If so; why did you put Anti-American in quotes? Attributing words to one who has not used those words is extremely dishonest.
I must say; I am impressed with your ability to communicate.
“go fornicate yourself” -What will you learn in 4th grade?
“Because “Anti-American” is pure propaganda language, Jim. It’s fascist anti-liberal smear in the Rove mold. A Neocon word of choice. Perhaps everyone would like to review the above comments to see who made use of the word “Anti-American”. I can assure you; it was not I.
IS,
Man, where do you get your information? You need a new source, that’s certain.
Out of the oh, millions, of legitimate history books written about the Nazis where they have only ever been identified as he very farthest right in the left/right spectrum, you seem to have found the only one that calls them leftists.
You said you’re willing to learn. Start with some history before you say something like that again. You’re making assertions again that are manifestly historically incorrect. Judging by your continuum of your comments, history is a weak spot. Self-improvement is the process of shoring up your weaknesses.
I.S., Buddha, Jill
So who exactly gets to define what’s a conservative society? IS’s conservative sounds like what Buddha would call liberal with “Free market” (which actually is called economic liberalism) thrown in.
This conversation would be make a lot more sense if we’d all acknowledge that there’s been no purely liberal or conservative political movements. I’d also suggest that we’d be best served by recognizing that tyranny knows no ideology other than whatever language gets it in power in that moment.
Jim,
Technically the term you used was “un-American”, the propagandistic equivalent.
Jim Byrne 1, June 23, 2009 at 11:39 am
“I almost can’t believe that I am reading such ignorant, un-American rhetoric from such elitists. You think anyone who does something you don’t like, or lives their life in a manner, or takes action in a way that you think is stupid, perverse, or irrational should be prevented from doing so.”
Lube up, buttercup.
Jill,
To I.S. “You get your original question answered, then you simply move on to some other thing without addressing the questions asked of you.”
Give him/her a chance. You posted your question at 3:17, and at 3:33 you’re chastizing I.S. for not answering the question. It is quite possible that he/she had not even seen your 3:17 post, when I.S. made the 3:22 post.
Buddha writes to IS: You said you’re willing to learn. Start with some history before you say something like that again. You’re making assertions again that are manifestly historically incorrect. Judging by your continuum of your comments, history is a weak spot. Self-improvement is the process of shoring up your weaknesses.
me: If I can join in for a moment… I’d like to recommend The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. It is long and turgid in some places but is considered by most historians to be the most accurate and in depth primer on the subject.
if after reading this iS still thinks that the Nazi party was on the left there is nothing we can do. IS is doomed.
Buddha said; Lube up, buttercup.
Wow Buddha! You’re a true assett to this blawg.
I won’t stoop to your level. And I will not continue to provide commentary on a blog that permits such.
You win! I hope you’re happy.
Much thanks to Prof. Turley for providing, what has the potential of being, a forum to debate our differences.
Goodbye
Jill writes: Thanks for passing the praise of Benny Hinn. I hadn’t heard of him, (which has been my supreme loss). Until now I didn’t realize I could get such really neat stuff such as:
me: well honey, you ain’t seen nothin’ til you’ve seen Benny at work. there was an expose done about him a few years ago. he has a fleet of luxury cars and airplanes all bought with love offerings, the gate and donations at his “concerts” and no doubt from the sales of all that dreck you found on his website.
if you ever have a slow day and get TBN on your cable check him out. he has the most amazing hair. and his suits are impeccably tailored but not out of any fabric I’ve ever seen before. No one really knows where he comes from. Might be India. maybe Pakistan.
all this is just background music to how he operates. he fills these huge stadiums and preaches like a demon for hours and then when it’s time to separate the faithful from their money the light go down, the temperature is turned up and the smoke machine and colored lights come on. his voice goes down… low and smooth and soft and he goes into his pitch after getting the audience all plastic and mellow.
he is sublime. he is just like jesus when he offers you his love and promises of abundance in your life.
and this is what passes for religion.
Jim Byrne,
Ignore people with whom you have a conflict on this blawg; I do that when needed.
Gyges,
“This conversation would be make a lot more sense if we’d all acknowledge that there’s been no purely liberal or conservative political movements. I’d also suggest that we’d be best served by recognizing that tyranny knows no ideology other than whatever language gets it in power in that moment.” I generally have no issue with this either and the observation about tyranny’s word choice is astute. But I put to you this, organizational psychology and individual psychology are distinct for this reason: humans are organic and organizations are a construct. A construct can be made to have a specific ideology by enforcement of rules top-down, but it can never actually force the individuals within to uphold that ideology due to the differences in individuals and what levels of action they are or are not willing to do to comport with maintaining their self-image. Not every Nazi was a true believer, I mean look at Rommel and von Stauffenberg. Some hated the Nazis but joined for survival reasons right along side the true blood goose steppers, but the organization was far right as dictated from the top and since an organization is a structure and not a man, the espoused organizational values were fairly consistent across its’ life.
Sorry, Jim.
It’s your own words that did you in.
Jonathan, last night a Scientology media person emailed me about placing links to a YouTube playlist on my blog. They offered me money in exchange.
hidflect,
Feeding and educating are not equivalent.
But I know where you are coming from.
Buddha,
I have no essential disagreement with that. I just generally caution against over simplification. I think the discussion is hugely crippled by our one dimensional view of the political spectrum. It’s like discussing flavor limiting yourself to sweet and dry (As an aside, I think that the English Language is woefully short on descriptors for taste and sound).
Jill:
I thought I did answer.
BIL:
where do you get your info, NAZI stands for National Socialist-they were socialists, i.e. progressives.
Thanks for the advice FFLEO, but it’s not Buddha’s words, it’s the fact that those words are considered acceptable in an environment that promotes the exchange of ideas, that influenced my determination to withdraw from participating.
I’m heading out to cool off (literally). My dear friends (hard core liberals) have invited me over for a little time in the pool, followed by dinner. -You’d be surprised at how well people with opposing viewpoints can get along when the response isn’t to go F yourself.
hidflect:
Troll? why because I have some differing views.
So far none have you have convinced me of anything other than that you have no clue as to varying forms of political philosophy and that you dont tolerate dissent very well.
It’s quite simple to call someone a troll. But I dont think I have said anything approaching Trolletry.
I base this on how I was treated on another thread and how I see Jim Byrne being treated here. He has said nothing in my mind to rate the comments given back to him.
IS : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
-
Suffice it to say: It doesn’t matter which direction the bullet that kills you comes from. One point three million innocent Iraqis can’t be wrong about that.
http://www.light-to-dark.com/the_petraeus_insult.html
rofl
IS,
You really are hopeless.
Look, the book GWLSMom suggested is a good one. I suggest it along with “Inside the Third Reich” by Albert Speer. Even go read Wiki for God’s sake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazis
I’m treating you like the highly uneducated person you seem to be at this moment. However, if this is a trollish attempt to smear progressives by equating socialism with Nazism, the ignorance and stupidity of your statement is so dazzlingly counterproductive to any goal associated with with properly deployed propaganda to that end, that if you were a troll, you wouldn’t be a very competent troll.
Sergeant Howie: What religion can they possibly be learning jumping over bonfires?
Lord Summerisle: Parthenogenesis.
Sergeant Howie: What?
Lord Summerisle: Literally, as Miss Rose would doubtless say in her assiduous way, reproduction without sexual union.
Sergeant Howie: Oh, what is all this? I mean, you’ve got fake biology, fake religion… Sir, have these children never heard of Jesus?
Lord Summerisle: Himself the son of a virgin, impregnated, I believe, by a ghost…
Adolf Hitler became powerful because ordinary people looked for an easy way out of economic and social problems. Before Hitler became the sole head of the German state, the people of Germany were looking for a way to restore economic and social harmony. Hitler promised both, but in turn they would have to give up some individual freedoms. Democracy died and national socialism was born. Big government provided all the necessities that the people wanted, but in turn no one was allowed to voice opposition to the only government party. Socialized medicine, socialized workers, and cradle to grave care was provided by the big government, but at an enormous cost to individual dignity and freedom. As the supreme architect of this socialist state Hitler became the most powerful figure of the twentieth century.
Yep. Sounds pretty Conservative to me.
http://library.thinkquest.org/12663/summary/naziframe.html
Jim,
You’d be surprised how calling someone un-American gets you the finger when you’re ostensibly here to debate? Please. You seem remarkably unconcerned about that. You can differ all you like, but you were talking smack, you elitist Neocon poser. “Liberal” doesn’t mean I’m your doormat. You don’t like it? Too bad. Try calling some of your liberal friends (if they exist) un-American and see how long it takes for you to get, at a minimum, the finger. If you don’t want your delicate sensibilities offended, you should probably keep that garbage to yourself, citizen.
Well IS, at least you’ve finally come clean. You’re just the stupidest troll I’ve ever seen. That’s just simply staggering propaganda, a gross mis-characterization and historically WRONG.
Buddha,
I think it’s pretty clear that IS isn’t a troll. He seems fairly intelligent, just (as we all are) blinded by his beliefs. I’d even point out that both he and Jim are far more civil than you a large chunk of the time.
To be honest your constant baiting wears thin, but we’ve had this discussion before, so let’s not rehash that discussion.
Jim and IS,
MOST of us here treat people with differing views respectfully, assuming that we’re afforded the same courtesy. Even Buddha will calm down eventually. I honestly like having both of you around, even though we disagree on some fundamentals.
I hope you’ll look at it from the native’s point of view: We often get people who come by just to show them damn liberals the good news. They don’t engage in conversation, just preach. Both of you have occasionally fallen into that pattern (and have been preached at in return); sometimes it’s hard to tell the conversationalists from the missionaries.
GWL,
I will look for this god-man! Your description was hilarious!!
Gyges,
I won’t engage with IS because he has no intention of making an honest argument. In a real argument we would define the terms as you suggest. To me, the striking question is what allows people to follow an authoritarian way or person. I think we are all vunerable to this. Some of the people who participated in the Milgram experiment said it gave them a lot of self-awareness and it made them very sensitive to authoritarianism whenever it came up in their lives. They said the were sucessfully able to resist and/or stand up for their rights and the rights of others after the experiement. These were the people who had taken it to “kill”.
Paradoxically, I believe that people often participate in evil things out of the desire for love. Wanting to be loved and accepted is one of our deepest needs and desires. If it takes being cruel and vicious to feel loved, then we will be cruel and vicious. The true psychos know this about people and they use it.
Jill,
I had a great discussion with IS the other day. I’m convinced he’s sincere, just used to a different style of conversation. I’m more then willing to give him time. It’s a bit of a shock to realize that every other tribe name means “The people” too.
I’d replace “love” with “belonging to a group,” but either one works. I guess it’s my nature bias attempting to refine your nurture.
BIL:
why did they call themselves National Socialists? And why did their government look like a socialist one?
I am calling progressives socialists and NAZI’s are socialists too. I am not saying that current progressives are going to send anyone to the camps or the ovens I am merely stating that it seems in the last hundred years a progressive government is not a very good one, i.e. Germany, Russia, China, Argentina, etc..
And we currently have a self styled progressive for president and that seems to be working out very well indeed. Socialized med., government ownership of the means of production. And who knows what else he will come up with.
for my money progressive = tyranny every time.
Gyges,
If you wish to continue to educate IS, please feel free, but the constant recycle on the socialism tag is all I need to see. I’m done with him.
However, I won’t back down on the un-American issue. Jim got what he deserved and he’ll get it again if he wants to play that way. His word choice sank him. I just helped. Up to that point, I’ve been circumspect with him for me and you know it. I even encouraged him to not to quit when Mike had him cornered over word choice before. But he crossed a line with that un-American bit. He’d get the finger IRL too. I am what I am, imperfections and all, but “doormat” isn’t on the product specs.
IS,
Is a country that elects their Kings a Monarchy or democracy? Should we assume that members of the KKK are all Scottish? Does a rose by any other name still smell as sweet?
BIL:
TROLL WAS NOT MY POST. I actually did not think his link was very good. But I do agree with what he was saying as far as the NAZI’s being socialists.
I am sorry but Hitler was a socialist. And Albert Speer was a delusional fool, I have not read his book but I have read a fairly good book about him by a woman I believe but it has been so long ago I neither remember her name nor the name of the book.
If you want we can go round and round on this too. But you are incorrect.
Gyges:
what has that got to do with anything?
history has shown us that progressive governments limit civil liberties. Call it what you will.
IS,
Most humble apologies then. I did indeed think you were answering hid as Troll. But seriously. Read several history books. And learn how to ask a question if you aren’t certain you can back up something as fact before making an assertion upon said fact. There are no bad questions but there are bad assertions. It’ll save a lot of misunderstandings.
IS,
I’m saying that there’s how organizations represent themselves, and how the act.
If we’re going to have this discussion, we’re going to need to define conservative and progressive. I suggest we both go to Wikipedia (or other encyclopedia or dictionary) and use their definitions.
“history has shown us that progressive governments limit civil liberties. Call it what you will.” A completely unfounded generalization seeking to further smear progressives is what I’ll call it. Do you want anymore proof he’s a troll, Gyges, or do you want to hear him blather endlessly about how progressives and socialists are the cause of the world’s ills? That’s all he’s doing. He wants progressives to be demonized and the bad guys so bad it’s impaired his reasoning or he’s just cashing a check to be an obtuse blockhead (the technical term is FOXNews viewer). He’s also a dishonest actor. If he was just stupid, I’d be more patient, but the pattern is clear to me now and his agenda isn’t learning. I hope you like dancing the waltz, because he’s going to be running you in circular patterned box steps.
Freedom is the right to act according to ones will without being held up by the power of others. From a philosphical point of view, it can be defined as the capacity to determine your own choices. It can be defined negatively as an absence of subordination, servitude and constraint.
From the Revolution to our own time, freedom has been America’s strongest cultural bond and its most perilous fault line, a birthright for some Americans and a cruel mockery for others.
Am I alone in joining Jim in his efforts to preserve freedom? Efforts to infringe upon the private freedoms of the people, is, by the very core principles upon which this nation was founded, an un-American act. BIL may not like it, but I’m afraid Jim has only made the poor choice of calling a spade a spade while visiting unfriendly territory.
Troll,
You’re funny. Quite a hoot. Yeah, it’s you and Jim against the whole tide of those who are un-American. So tell me, Troll, who gave you and Jim the right to negate citizenship, sport? God? The Supreme Court? Your mom? Jim got smacked down because he let his mouth overload his ability to dig himself out of a self-inflicted injury. He’s good with words, quite the sophist, but he’s dancer, not a fighter. In exercising my freedoms, such as the Freedom of Speech, I really don’t need your help, but your concern is appreciated, citizen. And not like it? I love it when a troll chokes on his own filth. Even if I’m the one feeding it to him.
BIL:
“Do you want anymore proof he’s a troll, Gyges, or do you want to hear him blather endlessly about how progressives and socialists are the cause of the world’s ills?”
Well they certainly havent gotten us to the promised land and I will say that the conservatives havent done much better. One wants tyranny on earth and one wants tyranny on earth for heavens sake. Both seek claim to mans soul/spirit. One has man chained to man the other has man chained to God. Both supposedly for their own good.
They both sap mans spirit of enjoyment for life on this earth.
You are a bully. You dont need to be a bully to not be a door mat
Now say what you will about the Right Reverend Benny Hinn but his “saving” technique is first rate! It’s like people-bowling where people are the pins. Sync in some Benny Hill music and you got a show.
Sorry – I.S. turns every thread into a train wreck. But no matter how much he assumes alternate identities, he’s easy to spot. It’s that mouse-trap mind that gives him away…
IS,
And you don’t have to act so ignorant and thin skinned because it’s all a bunch of fakery to drum up sympathy for “the dumb guy”. Sorry. Your constant recycling of the “progressives bad, conservatives good” is just a re-run from other threads. When taken to task, you whine. Gyges may think you’re an honest actor and bless him for the decent optimist he seems to be, but I’ve seen enough to think you’re a pantload propaganda plant playing stupid for sympathy while hoping your smears (all of which have been historically wrong and unfounded) will trap some of the FOX demographic. Oh! And don’t forget to appeal to God! Yeah . . . that’s logic and legal reasoning! No propaganda value in implying anyone not conservative is Godless. I’m not the only one who thinks you’re a dishonest operator either. Others have said the exact same thing after attempting to engage you. That could be because your arguments reflect that. Yeah, I’m a right bastard alright, I’ll stipulate it. Being nice isn’t a pre-requisite to law school or the practice of law and is in fact usually a hindrance. But there’s no way you are as you present yourself. Bully? Perhaps, but I’m a bully on the side of the Constitution before any party and I’m straight up about it. I dance for no puppeteer than the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. You, on the other hand, appear to have yourself tangled in your strings. Here’s someone who can help: geppedo @ pinnochio.com. He can help with that nose thing too.
Speaking of Hinn, how does he compare to Robert Tilton? Anyone seen them both in action? I’ve seen articles about Hinn, but never the show, but Tilton is like watching services where the pastor has dropped a heroic dose of mescaline.
Hey BIL… I think you really enjoyed that rant! hahahaa… Sometimes we need a little cathartic rage, right?
Now hit the showers!
rofl
hidflect,
Although you mistake passion for rage, a shower does sound good. It’s miserable hot here today! (Second day of heat advisories BTW, interesting nick. What’s the etymology?
Buddha,
I’m probably more of a realist than you realize, but it costs me next nothing to spend thirty seconds during a break to type a reply. It costs my more time to do research to make sure my views are justified, but I gain further knowledge. In a very Randian fashion, I’m in this conversation for my own sake, I don’t seek to convert anyone, but to test the strength of my own ideas and logic.
Not that the conversation’s started yet, I’m still trying to get my dancing partner to agree to tango instead of foxtrot.
BIL:
I am not whining. I dont care if anyone has any sympathy for me. And I am pretty consistent in what I believe.
Gyges:
progressive – belief in government control of means of production and the welfare state, does not believe in individual rights.
conservative – generally in favor of capitalism and individual liberty.
is that clear enough for you? Why should those even need to be defined? They are pretty much the common understanding of the words. Unless of course your definition of progressive is something else, but then in that case you would be wrong. I think what you are thinking of is an old fashioned liberal of the libertarian bent like Nat Hentoff possibly or maybe Ayn Rand, although Rand would not classify herself as a libertarian if I understand her views correctly (any Objectivists care to correct that?)
So what shall it be Tango or Foxtrot?
hidflect:
“Sorry – I.S. turns every thread into a train wreck. But no matter how much he assumes alternate identities, he’s easy to spot. It’s that mouse-trap mind that gives him away…”
the TROLL was not me. So I guess you have a pea brain? At least I can catch a simple concept once in awhile with a mouse trap mind.
But that was a funny comment, learn that from Buddha or Gyges?
Of course, hidflect, you’re supposed to take him at his word that he’s not Troll. You’re being asked to accept an unproven assertion of identity by a guy who says Nazis are leftists. Are you up to the challenge of dancing or are you, like me, just watching for the wrecks now?
Hey.
I think I finally understand the appeal of NASCAR.
Hi, all. I’ve been out of pocket during the past week. It appears that the exchanges on this thread have been, well, wide ranging. I have a couple of comments. First, there was nothing “progressive” or “liberal” about German national socialism. Forget the party platform or other nonsense. Hitler’s political philosophy was as thrown together as his brain. It was an amalgamation of nationalism, anti-semitism and anti-immigrant attitudes held together by a commitment to his master race theory under a form of civil religion that promoted an Aryan Jesus. It is nonsensical to attempt to compare it to traditional socialism, social democratic theory or other forms of progressivism. In fact, it is nonsensical to compare it to anything. It was the unique product of a particular time and particular circumstances. It stands alone.
Second, Benny Hinn had a church in Orlando for a number of years. He made a ton of money, owned expensive houses and was driven by limousine to have his hair cut (you don’t think it’s easy keeping your hair looking like his does, do you?). His church property was gated and guards were on site to prevent the unfaithful (like reporters) from coming on to the grounds. He was eventually “called” to relocate his ministry because he was interested in expanding the reach of his ministry, which is another way of saying he wanted to be in an area with a larger population base amenable to his message, such as it is. He continues to prove that Jonathan Swift’s views of human intelligence were charitable. In the meantime, his old church property is now operated by Clint Brown Ministries as “Faith World.” The Rev. Mr. Brown is also a firm believer in “prosperity theology,” particularly as it relates to him. For the convenience of his parishioners, after one has filled the collection basket, anything left over can be used to purchase Clint Brown music CDs in the lobby on the way out.
BIL:
NAZI’s were leftists, you really are showing your ignorance. But that’s ok, you do it most of the time you post a comment but the others on this site are probably afraid of you so they leave it alone.
You have got to stop using Wikipedia.
Man but you can bluster and hustle. Must be that law school training if you cant win with facts, obfuscate. Maybe you are John Edwards, he won a couple of big cases with bravo sierra. Is that you John?
Gyges,
That is why you are an engaging conversationalist. You appreciate learning for the sake of knowledge. But I don’t think of that as Randian, no. Not all services to the self have solely selfish benefits. Learning is one of those services if you look at the process like one considers any tool. It can be of benefit or bane depending upon application, but the tool in itself is valuable as its’ accretion builds the potential required to move civilization forward. New ideas are rarely novations but rather more often are re-engineering of pre-existing knowledge. Novations and re-engineering not possible without the basics of education, formal or otherwise. I do apologize if I was interfering with your recreational research.
Mike Appleton:
“It is nonsensical to attempt to compare it to traditional socialism, social democratic theory or other forms of progressivism.”
no it is not, you are correct in that it had other elements but at core Hitler was a socialist.
IS,
Float your trollery elsewhere, Factually Incorrect Boy. And send me a post card. I’m interested in alien sky colors, specifically on the world where the political organ that was the very definition of right wing in every poli sci textbook since WWII are all suddenly leftists. Seriously, does your mom let you out of the house with that brain and no supervision?
that
was
rhetorical.
(To be read in the voice of William Shatner)
BIL:
guess the books you have been reading were written by left wing idealogues bent on saving face.
it must suck to not understand a simple concept.
IS, my disagreement with your position is based upon my opinion, from everything I’ve read or seen about the man, that Hitler did not have a coherent political or social philosophy. He was a megalomaniac with some serious anger issues. He had an ideal of the German state, which he believed he epitomized. All of the rest was simply words tossed out in the consolidation of power. Marx and Engels actually had some valuable insights into human nature and the power of capitalism to destroy human lives. It is for that reason that they are still read by students of political philosophy. No one reads Hitler, including the right-wing militia groups in this country who idolize him.
IS,
No dice, we use a neutral source for the definition. Your definitions are simplistic, biased in the extreme, not to mention inaccurate. I don’t let the people I’m talking to change the English language to suit their propaganda.
If you want to recite Regan’s Catechisms then I have no interest in continuing this. I’ve talked to enough missionaries in my life.
No IS, what sucks is to be a fully exposed troll.
BIL, What is “American”? Define that and you have your definition of “Un-American” Same for “Traitor”.
I believe without reservation that Bush et al are traitors and should have their backs to a wall for their treason. I know how I define the enemies of America (based on my definition of America as place made up of citizens adhering to American ideals) so the Bush cabal to me provided them aid and comfort, became one with them. I suspect from your reluctance to call Cheney a traitor that we have a difference of opinion on what it means to be an “American” in the most refined terms.
I’m curious- how do you define “American”?
Mike A.,
Odd enough that you mention no one reading Hitler, because your assessment is mostly correct and until recently I’d have said totally correct. Did you catch this bit of weirdness?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/5182107/Indian-business-students-snap-up-copies-of-Mein-Kampf.html
It just goes to show Finagle’s Law still applies: The perversity of the universe tends toward the maximum.
Buddha, according to the article the copyright expires in 2015. Then we can all publish it. But since India is big on trains, why is there not a big demand for Mussolini’s autobiography?
lotta,
I define American as a natural born or legally naturalized citizen who upholds the Constitution and the principles therein and is willing to defend those principles from all enemies foreign and domestic. Now, you are operating under a misconception I’ll need to clear up. Because of the nature of Dick’s treason (violating the Constitution by authorizing torture in addition to other crimes) is so egregious and strikes directly at the taproot of our legal system that I should stipulate that I do in my interior monologue consider Cheney un-American. Compare that to Aldrich Ames whom I consider a convicted traitor but totally American. He like Cheney committed crimes for a money motive, but Ames attacked the mechanisms of State, not the validity of the singular founding document that is the Constitution. Also they way in which Dick did it was so counter to the image of America abroad. Suspending habeas corpus was bad enough, but torture? To me, as you can see by how I define American, how that is axiomatically anti-American. I never called Cheney un-American because it’s uncouth and a tool of the Neocon enemy that they employed in the run up to the Invasion for Exxon’s P/L Statement, not because I don’t feel he’s not acted against our best interests as citizens.
Mike A writes: IS, my disagreement with your position is based upon my opinion, from everything I’ve read or seen about the man, that Hitler did not have a coherent political or social philosophy. He was a megalomaniac with some serious anger issues. He had an ideal of the German state, which he believed he epitomized. All of the rest was simply words tossed out in the consolidation of power. Marx and Engels actually had some valuable insights into human nature and the power of capitalism to destroy human lives. It is for that reason that they are still read by students of political philosophy. No one reads Hitler, including the right-wing militia groups in this country who idolize him.
me: I kinda wish I’d written this. In fact, its what I’ve been waiting for. Even Hitler’s ideas about the 1000 year reich and master race were not his own. the final solution was not his idea. he may have wanted a pure aryan germany but had no idea how to accomplish it on his own.
the only part of hitler’s ideology from mein kampf that the neo-nazis know is the “14 words” and that’s because it can fit on a t-shirt.
what IS doesn’t know is that the first group Hitler went after long before he went after the jews were communists.
IS writes: NAZI stands for National Socialist-they were socialists
me: jesus h christ. i’m losing my patience with you. just because the word “socialism” was part of their tag does not mean that the nazi party was socialist in any real or imaginary way. because you are such a literalist and seem to be immune from any advice given you regarding the nazi party, its organization, its founder and his ideas and because you seem to be incapable of learning, my role in this very weird dance with you is over.
you may continue to believe what you will. you are and will always be wrong.
don’t believe me, or anyone else here. check with someone in real life, say, some history prof if the town where you live has a university. if that’s too advance, try any high school world history book. Better still, try your local public library. you don’t even have to read a whole book.
GW MOM:
yes I did know that, its pretty basic knowledge. The NAZI’s and the communists were the same kind of thugs and so did not care much for each other. Like opposing mafia orgs. They were both competing for the same territory, and the NAZI’s won.
So that makes communists good? When did your ancestors come here? I bet it was during that wave of immigration from central Europe, those intellectuals thought Marx was such a great guy and they brought that stuff here.
Buddha writes: Speaking of Hinn, how does he compare to Robert Tilton? Anyone seen them both in action? I’ve seen articles about Hinn, but never the show, but Tilton is like watching services where the pastor has dropped a heroic dose of mescaline.
me: I’ve never seen Tilton in action. is he on TV? where does he get his mescaline? can you buy some on his church giftshop website?
Buddha writes: think I finally understand the appeal of NASCAR.
you mean the round and round real fast thing? the only appeal nascar has for me are the drivers. hot men in tight jumpsuits. and not even so much compared to say, your average UPS guy.
I love this cant refute what I have said so everyone of you has gone to ad hominum attacks. It really is grand, sputtering all about.
and GWlawmom, I suggest you go do some reading instead of parroting Buddha and Mike and Gyges because they dont know what they are talking about either as far as this is concerned. What they know is the leftist slant to the NAZI issue, if I were a leftist I would not want to be associated with a group of thugs like that either. I am sure leftist intellectuals went ape shizzle in the late 40′s and 50′s back peddling from association. It must have been such fun to watch.
GWLSMom,
Last time I saw Hilton it was on a New Orleans local channel.
Here’s a little career summary.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-tilton_28met.ART.State.Edition2.50eb9da.html
IS writes: I am sure leftist intellectuals went ape shizzle in the late 40′s and 50′s back peddling from association. It must have been such fun to watch.
me: I am so done with you. you ignorant jerk. in the 40′s my leftist intellectual family was pretty much incinerated. the ones who did manage to crawl out of the ashes were not fun to watch. neither was it fun to watch my family spend most of the 50′s trying to find family who may have survived and trying to get on with their lives.
wanna know what the gift that keeps giving is from that period? an 85 year old man who can’t recognize his wife and kids but screams very night because he does remember every detail of Buchenwald.
try to be a mensch. I know it doesn’t come easily to you but it will make you more popular at cocktail parties.
I’ve made a reply here 3 times- doesn’t show up. I give up. I wonder if this will show up.
I’m going to assume divine intervention. I’m not supposed to address this thread.
IS,
Still waiting for a neutral source. I understand your distaste for Wikipedia (although I find it funny coming from a man whose sole argument against a book is “I read a biography about the guy that wrote it years ago, I don’t remember the name of the book or author”), but give me a dictionary or something other than “Conservative is everything I think is good.”
Buddha:
Having read your running gun battle with jim byrne,I do conclude JB is not a troll, merely dyslexic. I simply said to jimbo that stupid ideas are not free from criticism just because someone sincerely believes them. Jim morphed that into some notion that I advocated that the government should come down on these dunderheads which is far from the truth. Jim then proceeded to wrap himself in the flag while whisting Yankee Doodle while slapping red, white and blue paint on everything. Jim can’t distinguish between public scorn over stupid ideas (which I advocate),and government action to prevent or discourage them (which I do NOT advocate). Your are locked in a battle with a second rate advocate, and try as you might, you can’t make him smell the coffee.
mespo,
I concur in your diagnosis.
mespo,
But that being said, the un-American thing is always uncalled for, even when true (see Cheney comment).
Author: Buddha Is Laughing
Comment:
GWLSMom,
Last time I saw Hilton it was on a New Orleans local channel.
Here’s a little career summary.
hilarious. just hilarious.
where do they get that hair? is there some special evangelical barber shop they all go to?
As Robert Tilton was asked by a reporter in response to the excessive lifestyle he was living he said: “G-d never meant for me to be poor.”
Yes, in Jesus name we pray. Pay the Leader.
MESPO STARTED THE PROBLEM WITH JIM. BIL JUST PILED ON.
mespo727272
1, June 23, 2009 at 8:24 am
jim byrne:
““Do you really want to be on the side of tolerating that which is stupid, perverse, or irrational?”
As long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others; YES!
Very emphatically YES.”
************
That’s like advocating free lance dynamiting in Manhattan, but only so long as it doesn’t affect others.
________________________________________________________
AS YOU CAN SEE, JIM DIDN’T ADVOCATE ANYTHING. HE MERELY IS WILLING TO TOLERATE WHAT THE US CONSTITUTION PROTECTS. THAT IS AN AMERICAN TRADITION.
MESPO AND BIL: IS AN ACT, REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION UN-AMERICAN?
GWLSmom:
I have read a good deal about the camps, it was horrible and may it never come to pass again. I am sure we can agree on that.
But in my opinion when the state is placed above the individual and that is what socialism and communism do, the logical conclusion is the destruction of human beings. It happened in Nazi Germany, it happened in China, it happened in Soviet Russia, it is happening in Iran.
Gyges:
how many books do you remember titles and authors from over 10 years ago? I found the book in my library it is by Gitta Sereny and is called Albert Speer His Battle with Truth.
So tell me your definitions, not what your wikipedia says or some other web site but what you think. All this quoting of sources is, to my mind, an evasion of having to think for oneself.
BIL, from what I can see, dosent do much original thinking, he just quotes Wiki and Huff post and then rehashes the same old format over and over again when he tries to troll stomp. It’s actually pretty funny and since most people are not used to it they run and hide. I could argue with him by just cutting and pasting his words and filling in my own tidbits here and there. I will say one thing he sure is consistent. I think he must have the standard stuff saved, for example when he isnt quite sure it’s-
“I’ll give you this you may be a troll but your better than most” or some such tom foolery. Buddha can you give me a sample so I can cut and paste? I am working on a library of BILisms so I can effectively argue on this web site.
If it makes you all feel any better I went to the handbook of progressive thought in the 20th century and sure enough on page 213 was a description of Nazi’s – right wing organization dedicated to the destruction of individual freedom and liberty. Used by modern day conservatives as a role model for good government.
My apologies. And I thought they were on the left, gosh darn wrong again. Thank goodness for the handbook.
Buddha:
“mespo,
But that being said, the un-American thing is always uncalled for, even when true (see Cheney comment).”
**********
If jim byrne’s is representational of the intellect of America, it may be a compliment!
IS,
I once witnessed a fight between two drunks because they had dated the same girl at the same time. At least until one thought to ask the other one what her last name was. I don’t really want to argue semantics with you, but a common definition is key, thus my suggestion we pick one from a neutral source. If you don’t want to do that, sorry I wasted our time trying to have a conversation with you.
If your world view is so fragile that a simple change in phraseology causes it to crumble, then you may be better off for it having fallen. My original points (defining things as liberal or conservative stifles conversation, etc.) hold up even if we decide that liberal means someone that believes in the Easter Bunny and conservative means someone who punches kittens.
We don’t ask for much here, that you back your claims up with proof or at least some sort of sympathetic material. The standards are actually pretty loose, we just like to be able to read over the primary material so we can see if it really says what you think it says.
Troll:
“MESPO AND BIL: IS AN ACT, REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION UN-AMERICAN?:
**********
Nope, it’s unconstitutional?
Troll,
What mespo said.
“If a law or proposed law is unconstitutional, it is un-American, as are the law’s proponents, no matter how many people vote for it.”
http://www.calnews.com/Archives/contreras28.htm
“Far more damaging is the administration’s attack on fundamental constitutional rights that we ought to have and do have as American citizens. The very idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedies, and that this can be done on the sole say-so of the president of the United States or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale and un-American and it ought to be stopped.” -Al Gore
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/15/flashback_gore_calls_bush_policies_un-american_in_2002_speech.html
LOOKS LIKE JIM MADE THE MISTAKE OF LISTENING TO AL GORE
Troll,
LOOKS YOU MADE THE MISTAKE OF BEING UNABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE CALLING A POLICY UN-AMERICAN AND CALLING AN AMERICAN UN-AMERICAN.
But I admire your honesty in nick choice. Seriously. It’s refreshing.
cough cough cough containment cough cough cough
BIL said “LOOKS YOU MADE THE MISTAKE OF BEING UNABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE CALLING A POLICY UN-AMERICAN AND CALLING AN AMERICAN UN-AMERICAN.”
LOOKS LIKE BIL HAS THE SAME PROBLEM
Jim Byrne
1, June 23, 2009 at 11:39 am SAID: “I almost can’t believe that I am reading such ignorant, un-American rhetoric from such elitists.
JIM COMMENTED ON THE RHETORIC NOT THE AMERICAN.
LOOKS LIKE YOU OWE JIM AN APOLOGY!
I’LL HAVE TO CONCUR WITH HIS ELITISTS FINDING.
So what is the difference between one doing un-American things and being un-American? If you do it, you are it. Otherwise you end up going down the path ‘Hitler was really a nice guy that just got, you know, bulls***ed by his associates, he liked dogs after all’. BIL, you and Mespo are being IMO silly regarding Jim’s statement. Dangerously silly.
Jim made a flat statement (that I also agree with totally) that thought should not be restrained. He said: “People can, and will, believe in whatever they want to believe. They should be able to do so; even if it will hurt them in the eyes of others.”
Mespo characterized that as “muddle-headed thinking that leads to disastrous and preventable social problems.” and after Jim stated unequivocally that tolerance is not advocacy he was asked by Mespo
“Do you really want to be on the side of tolerating that which is stupid, perverse, or irrational?” and Jim responded with “As long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others; YES! Very emphatically YES. I will tolerate people being stupid, perverse, and irrational.”
You then came in with “Well there’s your problem right there. It’s two fold. … First, stupidity and irrationality almost always screw up something which usually means some non-stupid rational person is the victim although moron on moron crime is not new or unheard of. … Second, there is problem and quite simply it’s you if that is truly how you feel.”
And it went from there. You actually ‘attacked’ him as a “problem” because he did not want thought restrained and said he would tolerate “that which is stupid, perverse, or irrational” so long as it didn’t infringe the rights of others.
Mespo actually shifted the argument slightly, Jim’s original statement regarded only what one believes and Mespo responded negatively to that argument then broadened the focus to include other things but there is no indication from my reading that the added items are actions. I’m just seeing a listing of thoughts.
Regarding thoughts: I agree absolutely with Jim’s position.
You and Mespo are arguing to ban certain thoughts. How would that work exactly? Just exactly what am I not to think- what is on your list of banned thoughts? What would you have done to me, or Jim or Seamus if we start thinking banned thoughts? How do you propose to keep us from thinking banned thoughts? If we speak a banned thought will you put us in a little box with spiders until we recant?
On actions that reflect the characterization of stupid, perverse and/or irrational: I agree wholeheartedly with Jim on that also.
Don’t we already have laws prohibiting those things when my S/P/I acts infringe your rights? Do you want to expand that list? What would you add? Would you predicate your list on the infringement of another persons rights? If not why not? What laws don’t we have in this country related to S/P/I that we need?
Srsly, you guys IMO, are a cold-one shy of a six-pack on this one and way too aggressive about it.
Ok, so jim byrne and lottakatz are now on the side of stupidity, perversion, and irrationality because they are free to be so. Hooray!!! BTW nobody said anything about banning that kind of “thinking,” you just don’t get a free pass for doing so. Obviously that would silence both of your voices, and frankly we (Buddha and I) need the comic relief!
mespo,
I read your original statement in the same way that lottakatz did. I don’t appreciate the way Jim B. has conducted himself in many of his exchanges (and I think he’s a troll), but I read his original post also as saying people should not be stopped from thinking/doing stupid things, only illegal ones. I don’t think it’s fair for you to say lottakatz and jim are on the side of stupidity, perversion and irrationality. Lottakatz, at least, laid out a point by point reading of your arguments. I think it is fair to take her seriously and dispute her, but your statement above is a personal attack which she does not deserve. Honestly, I thought you meant to restrict stupid thoughts and actions that were illegal, until later, when you seemed to have changed this to the position you now advocate. It might have been a misread, it might have been a poorly worded argument, or a combination of both.
Jill:
“Lottakatz, at least, laid out a point by point reading of your arguments. I think it is fair to take her seriously and dispute her, but your statement above is a personal attack which she does not deserve.”
*************
I merely took her argument to its absurd logical extension. Not a personal attack on her but her reasoning. That’s precisely the difference I am arguing for.
lotta,
Yeah, what mespo said. Freedom of Speech is not the equivalent of the Freedom From Ridicule. Freedom To Be Ignorant, on the other hand, is a choice a person – citizen or not – is free to make. A choice Jim, and to my shock – you, both seem to think is acceptable. An odd choice if you think education leads to a better world for all, but okay, it’s your choice. Should that choice be free of consequence? Don’t think so. If one sticks ones hand in a bear cage, they shouldn’t be shocked when they get bit. That’s just a reflection of the mechanics of natural selection. Just like when someone says something aggressively stupid, they shouldn’t be shocked when they get the smack down. I was willing to let Jim be as stupid as he wanted up to the un-American comment – as I said it was his choice to be a bad example. The un-American comment was the equivalent of not only sticking his hand in the cage, but poking the bear in the eye.
Oh, would you look at that! Jim got his hand bitten by the bear!
His choice. Actions have consequence.
Troll,
I was the one of the one’s your buddy called un-American, so put a sock in it, Neocon. I owe Jim jack squat other than the trouncing he got.
“The entire history of (conservative) philosophy has been one of totalitarianism. From (Burke to William Buckley) to whomever the (conservative) de jour is today. They limit free speech and other freedoms, they are aggressive, in short they are thugs.
They cannot win in the ballot box so they use the courts or other forms of intimidation. They have no belief in anything except the certainty of their knowledge that their beliefs are right and must be implemented no matter the cost.”
IS,
Have you actually known any communists? Have you actually read Saul Alinsky? Have you even read any modern history by authors with who you disagree?
I have on all counts. In the late 60′s Communist Party People, Maoists and Trotskyites all tried to recruit me into their orbit. I talked with them to get to know their beliefs and then laughed at them for being gullible enough to believe them. By the way they uniformly hated Saul Alinsky, who was decidedly not a Marxist in that context. They hated Alinsky because he offered an alternative to their beliefs that froze them out of the picture. You display an ignorance of these issues, that to me is born of a closed mind that is so partisan you can’t even see the flaws of your own people.
Your statements above, with a few lines inserted (as shown)would indicate the same thing about conservatives, I could find actual incidents that would back up each charge, but if I adopted that tack I’d be as wrong as you are. On all areas of the political spectrum there are thugs and people who want to oppress other people. Only a fool could not understand this and brand people with whom they disagree as bad and evil. The problem is not the philosophy per se, Marx actually wanted to do good, but was flawed in that he couldn’t get beyond his own pre-judgments, sort of like you.
In your pre-judgment you deem me a leftist and while there might be some truth to that, what I really am is a pragmatic iconoclast, who believes in the “Golden Rule” (Hillel’s formulation)fervently and has tried to live my life in concert with it. Free you mind and you might actually escape the box you’ve built around your intellect.
“With the advent of the Internet there is no excuse to be ignorant of anything.”
IS,
How is it then that you are so ignorant of those you call progressives? Everyone has their blind spots. It is the wise individual that attempts to see what they are. Perhaps if you adopted the “Golden Rule” as a guiding philosophy you might be able to have compassion for others.
Jim Byrne,
Return and defend thyself! You are receiving attacks on several threads, especially since you said you were leaving this blawg.
“Big government provided all the necessities that the people wanted, but in turn no one was allowed to voice opposition to the only government party. Socialized medicine, socialized workers, and cradle to grave care was provided by the big government”
Troll,
Get your history straight. All of the things you say were provided by Hitler were actually instituted by then German
Chancellor Count Otto Von bismarck. These were implemented between 1883 and 1889 and were supported by Von bismarck as the duty of Christians. There are literally no recognized historians that would characterize Von bismarck as a liberal.
It is so hard discussing these issues with people who don’t have even a rudimentary knowledge, or interest in, history. I learned this about Von bismarck, by the way, in High School. What were you doing at the time, smoking grass?
Lottakatz,
Are you a Mr. or a Ms.? I am not trying to pry, just that you are sometimes referred to as she and sometimes as he.
Thanks
“If it makes you all feel any better I went to the handbook of progressive thought in the 20th century and sure enough on page 213 was a description of Nazi’s – right wing organization dedicated to the destruction of individual freedom and liberty. Used by modern day conservatives as a role model for good government. My apologies. And I thought they were on the left, gosh darn wrong again. Thank goodness for the handbook.”
IS,
Now you are not just annoyingly ignorant of history, you are beginning to make stupid jokes. Of course there is no such “handbook,” so your attempt at irony was childish. Most regular posters here do not need handbooks, or other party line preachers to formulate their ideas. They read widely and more importantly, they think.
You on the other hand have done nothing but prove that you are neither an extensive reader, nor really interested in any history that doesn’t fit into your preconceptions. your handbook is listening to Rush, Sean and Glenn and swallowing their ignorant rantings whole. They of course got their ideas from Grover Norqvist and Karl Rove. It is obvious that this is true because you endlessly repeat their propaganda.
As Jill and others aptly have stated, when you are faced with someone directly refuting your statements, you simply ask other questions and ignore addressing the points made.
That does qualify you as a troll, but like Jim Byrne a shifty one. The question any rational person must ask themselves is why do people like you do it? One possible answer is the delight that faux conservative have in “riling
up them Libruls.” While you may well be having fun don’t you realize how stupid you show yourself and your opinions to be?
By the way don’t give me the elitist crap, because the people you truly worship, the “haves” and “have mores” that GW Bush called his base, are the real elitists. Perhaps you are one of them and have an income in the top one percent. I have no way of knowing. My guess though is that you’re just an average working guy, who doesn’t understand where his own self interest lies.
I wish a fond goodbye to Mr. Byrne, for now. I would like to point out that I caught onto his act early though, while others
felt he was “engageable.” No gloat, well perhaps a little, the real point is that how people use their language indicates the honesty or disingenuousness of their positions. In Mr. Byrne’s case I saw this dishonesty early on, but allowed that I might be judging too quickly. His own subsequent posts revealed himself and affirmed my original judgment.
I think at times all of us regulars, myself included, react to those we disagree with as trolls, when there is just an honest debate afoot. The phrasing of people’s points should be the best indicator to us as to whether they are trolls, or merely represent another position on an issue. This is tied in with whether when engaged they try to refute your points, or ignore them and change the topic.
IS writes: I have read a good deal about the camps, it was horrible and may it never come to pass again. I am sure we can agree on that.
But in my opinion when the state is placed above the individual and that is what socialism and communism do, the logical conclusion is the destruction of human beings. It happened in Nazi Germany, it happened in China, it happened in Soviet Russia, it is happening in Iran.
me: yeah you regret what happened in the camps but you did not retract your statement about what liberal intellectuals were up to in the late 40′s, did you?
communism means that everything is collectively owned by the people. fascism means that everything is owned by the state. nazis were fascists.
can you wrap your teeny tiny little brain around that?
I know, at the far left and right extremes fascism and communism kinda look similar but they are not.
while there is no law against ignorance try to remember that ignorance is a choice and like many other things you have chosen it appears that you have chosen ignorance and have decided to wear that like a crown on your head. it fits you well.
Mike, Buddha, Et al,
I still don’t think IS falls into the “troll” category, but I think our disagreement is more over the use of the word troll then of the facts of the situation.
To me, a troll is somebody who’s sole purpose is to inflame people who are part of an online community. I think IS is much more likely to be playing missionary than Robin Goodfellow. Jim, I’m not so sure on anymore, which is why in general I’ve left him alone.
I could be just assuming the best in people, but if that’s the worst that’s said of me, I’d have made Mom proud.
FFLEO,
I’m pretty sure you should be tipping the Stetson I assume you wear at Lotta.
Et al,
Nevermind, just read This from IS:
“most in this blog havent seen a dictator they dont like. although the Mullahs touch a chord because they believe in a God. ”
I always admit when I’m wrong, and I’m admitting it now.
Gyges,
Your mom really should be proud. You optimist you.
Gyges writes: I still don’t think IS falls into the “troll” category, but I think our disagreement is more over the use of the word troll then of the facts of the situation.
I think IS was like a home schooled kid who never learned how to make friends and never graduated college and is probably 22 and unemployed and lives with his twice-divorced mother and watches Glenn Beck and O’Really and Hannity on the old 25″ in his bedroom and groks over their lies and damn lies because he can’t get a date and his mother won’t let him watch porn.
he’s different and it makes him feel good to be different, to be perceived as different because that makes him feel special. if he appears to be difficult it is simply because he has chosen to be ignorant. it is just as easy to chose to become educated and to take the advice of well-meaning adults who have offered to guide him through a few history books and the benefit of mature experience.
given who his tv heroes are it is unlikely that he will be able to individuate from them at any time in the future. individuation and maturation is hard work. learning to think for oneself and develop ideas and standards based in fact and from personal experience is hard work. it isn’t easy to take something from column a and b and c and taste all the flavors and decide what really works when you can just eat from the bottomless carton of swill that fox news dishes up.
my advice to IS: turn off the tv. turn off the computer for 6 months. sell everything you have, IS, and buy a plane ticket. travel. meet new people. see some ancient ruins and read the guidebook. then toss the guidebook and just open your eyes and your mind. then come back to the US enroll in community college get a real job and see where experience dovetails with open minded learning.
GWLSMom,
You used the verb “to grok” in context. You are woman after my own heart.
And I too perceive youth being a factor.
Gyges,
Speak for yourself. I think the Mullah’s are just dreamy!!!!
buddha writes:
You used the verb “to grok” in context. You are woman after my own heart.
And I too perceive youth being a factor.
me: thanks, doll. while writing this morning I sat searching for just the right work and grok just sprang to mind.
maybe we should go into the profiling business.
GWLSM wrote:
“…while writing this morning I sat searching for just the right work and grok just sprang to mind”
_________________________________
“right *work* and grok…”
The over-consumption of strawberries leads to dyslexic transpositions of ‘k’ for’d’ and ‘verse visa’….
FFLEO admits that he had to look up the *word* grok.
oh my is it that obvious? all you wise old intellectuals. Oh please tell me what to read I am waiting with baited breath. I so appreciate the opportunity to learn at the feet of the Masters:
From Gyges I can learn about invisible people who do stupid things
From Buddha I can learn how to cut and paste and it keep it congruent.
From GWMom I can Learn, well now that I think about it not much of anything (go back to shopping and annoying your husband)
from hidflect I can learn nothing at all.
from Mike Spindell I can learn about progressive thought all 1 sentence of it, but I think I know it already “if you work take your salary cut it into thirds and give your neighbor 1/3, the government 1/3 and you can keep the rest”
GdumbMom- why the f$%#@ would I want to learn anything about a philosophy that at its’ core is degrading to human beings. I already know what I need to know about commies and socialists-they suck and they ruin every thing they touch.
Did you all know that during the mid 1800′s in this country there were numerous socialist societies that had communes? Guess what every single one failed or turned to capitalism to make it work. Oh and the Pilgrims tried it to and oh guess what that did not work either and you know why? Probably not but I will tell you, because it is against mans nature as a rational being, that is why. But I guess none of you would understand that. Progressives, what a bunch of dopes, high ideals and good intentions but no outcome other than penury, hunger and woe.
Now you can all go back to sleep and dream your big dreams of changing men into gods and ending hunger, poverty and whatever else ails mankind. You all dream while capitalists actually do all of that.
everyone of you is an intellectual candy a$$.
Nazi’s are socialists-National Socialists they did not call themselves National Fascists.
Leo writes: “right *work* and grok…”
The over-consumption of strawberries leads to dyslexic transpositions of ‘k’ for’d’ and ‘verse visa’….
FFLEO admits that he had to look up the *word* grok.
me: I can spell just fine and am not dyslexic. I can’t type very well, is all.
that should have been “right word”
these kinds of errors do not show up on spell check.
i have this awful keyboard with a broken shift key and yeah, I know I could get a better one, a new one, but have gotten used to turning out sub par writings.
anyway, strawberry season is peaking now. I’m moved on to blackberries. did you know you can freeze blackberries and use them for fresh blackberry pie for thanksgiving? or any winter time treat?
Educating liberals is like herding cats. They just cant learn. What are you all cat people? Cats are quite nice but dumber than hell. At least a dog can learn to fetch a ball. And a Jack Russel is a better mouser than a cat. So there, take that cat lovers.
I am sorry that was to low even for a troll, I’ll give the cat its spot above a Jack Russel-but not by much.
“anyway, strawberry season is peaking now. I’m moved on to blackberries. did you know you can freeze blackberries and use them for fresh blackberry pie for thanksgiving? or any winter time treat?”
________________________________
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
BIL,
On June 23, 2009 at 11:39 am Jim Byrne SAID “I almost can’t believe that I am reading such ignorant, un-American rhetoric from such elitists.”
On June 23, 2009 at Buddha is laughing SAID “As to your last bolded statements, if you want to start throwing around the term “Un-American”, you can end the “discussion” right now and go fornicate yourself and your little avatar, troll.”
BIL, you’re being dishonest. Jim did not call you, or anyone else “un-American”. He referred to the rhetoric. You were the first to reply to his comment.
Of course you won’t apologize. That’s not in the elitist play book.
I see a pattern here. One can say “I like pancakes”. The adversary will say “You’re an idiot. There’s nothing wrong with waffles” In defense, the initial commentor attempts to defend with “I didn’t say anything about waffles”. The adversary replies with “That’s what you meant to say. You just think you’re clever enough to get away with it.”
Who is being dishonest?
“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” —Thomas Jefferson
The commentary of Buddha is laughing, mespo, Mike Spindell, and Vince Treacy have been very effective in exploring those “metaphysical subtleties”.
Troll:
“he commentary of Buddha is laughing, mespo, Mike Spindell, and Vince Treacy have been very effective in exploring those ‘metaphysical subtleties’.”
************
I suspect subtleties of any kind are foreign to you and yours–it doesn’t translate well when conversing with neo-cons. Too many words for the flash cards, I suppose.
IS,
Honestly the most insulting thing about that whole tirade was that I only rated making fun of my pen name. Well, that’s the price one pays for moderation.
Troll:
BTW you forgot Jefferson’s caveat about law and the role of lay people in the judicial system:
“[The people] are not qualified to judge questions of law, but they are very capable of judging question of fact. In the form of juries, therefore, they determine all controverted matters of fact, leaving thus as little as possible, merely the law of the case, to the decision of the judges.” –Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux, 1789. ME 7:422, Papers 15:283
“oh my is it that obvious? all you wise old intellectuals. Oh please tell me what to read I am waiting with baited breath. I so appreciate the opportunity to learn at the feet of the Masters:”
The old saw about giving someone enough rope has rung true for IS. I think we should all appreciate and applaud how long he kept his particular farce going and even strung some of us along in the belief that he was capable of actually engaging in discussion rather that mindlessly parroting Rovian memes. However, slowly but surely the catchphrases leeched to the surface as we can see in this example above. Call those who discredit your nonsensical cant, intellectuals or elitists. As if people of your kind represented the majority of American’s. No wonder you are all so angry now, America didn’t back your guys in the election. So you deal with it by trying to discredit those who won, by trying to characterize them as effete snobs, by turning disputable history on end.
You represent the elitists, IS, as even your nom de plume illustrates. You are the servant of the real elitists. You slavishly sniff their behinds and love the smell that emanates. You are indeed a servant, willing to do your master’s bidding. Make no mistake you masters, the real elite have no respect for you except as a servant. The difference between you and a real indentured servant though is that you are never going to be able to buy your freedom.
Your just a trained puppy, barking when you’re told. People like you don’t upset me, because perhaps I have too much compassion for the terminally pathetic, but you do disgust me
in your smug stupidity. What could I expect though, you probably think that Rush, Bill, Sean, Glenn and Michael are
intelligent and knowledgeable. Your shame is that in that belief you’re probably right, but they’re the ones driving the Mercedes, that fools like you pay for with your slavish devotion.
Troll,
You are a breath of fresh air in letting us know beforehand your intentions by your name, so we can ignore you now without thinking we missed out on a opportunity for good discussion.
mespo,
That is one of the most ambiguous statements Jefferson had ever made.
Most of the judges of Jefferson’s time had never attended law school. It wasn’t until the 1880′s that the first Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court had earned a modern law degree.
Your choice does well to exemplify the elitist attitude of far too many members of the legal profession.
Troll said “Buddha is laughing, mespo, Mike Spindell, and Vince Treacy have been very effective in exploring those ‘metaphysical subtleties’.”
How did my name get in there? I have not posted anything on this thread.
I have, however, responded to Jim Byrne over on “Obama adopts Cheney policy,” but haven’t heard from him lately. I see that Troll popped up after Byrne said goodbye, and seems very solicitous about how Byrne is treated here. My stuff on Obama birth is boringly fact based, epistemological maybe, but not metaphysical. Byrne dropped in an untranslated Latin phase, suggesting a background as a medieval scholastic. Is Troll Byrne.
I am not drawing any conclusions, you know, just making an observation.
IS,
I’ll let you decide what you find insulting and I’ll decide what I think is insulting.
As for the rest of your drivel? Well, considering you’ve just been handed your hat by five or six people in a row, your attacks are really just funny at this point. That is funny in a very pathetic way. Seriously, learn when to walk away. The more you talk, the more you prove everything said about you during your repeated hammerings. Take a lesson from your buddy Jim. You won’t win and your continued flailing is just embarrassing. It’s like watching the bride’s drunk ex-lover at the reception standing on the buffet table in the middle of the shrimp cocktail to announce his undying love for the just married woman before mooning the crowd, tongue kissing the caterer and passing out in his own sick. Nobody is physically harmed but everyone is thinking “What a jackass. Glad that isn’t me!” Jim at least walked away with some shred of dignity in tact. You’re just self-immolating at this point. But I guess that assumes you had any sense of dignity to start with.
Vince,
Good eye. Well worth considering.
Vince,
Oh come on you know you’re a bad person just like us. How dare you try to inject fact into a discussion with proponents of fantasy?
“The reality of the other person lies not in what he reveals to you, but what he cannot reveal to you. Therefore, if you would understand him, listen not to what he says, but rather to what he does not say.” – Kahlil Gibran
Sage advice in any endeavor, not just troll analysis.
Troll:
“Your choice does well to exemplify the elitist attitude of far too many members of the legal profession.”
*********************
Next time you go to the hospital I ‘ll put in a request for a mediocre surgeon for you instead of the elite one you obviously disdain. When charged with a felony, I bet you’d take the average lawyer instead of the elite one. When did elite get to be a dirty word? Yours in the whine of the “mass man,” holding on to some vague notion of nobility of the mediocre. Their is nothing wrong with being an elite–that is, unless you’re not.
Troll:
“I see a pattern here. One can say “I like pancakes”. The adversary will say “You’re an idiot. There’s nothing wrong with waffles” In defense, the initial commentor attempts to defend with “I didn’t say anything about waffles”. The adversary replies with “That’s what you meant to say. You just think you’re clever enough to get away with it.”
That is exactly what they do, I wish I would have said that, brillant. They get you doubting you even said I like pancakes. I dont know if it is a formula they adhere to or they are just to stupid to argue the points. Personally I think it is a formula but I dont count out stupidity so they rely on a formula.
BIL:
very funny. Not cutting a pasting today?
Mike Spindell:
go back to sleep, what are you a government worker with not much to do?
Gyges, did not want to leave you out as you might have been tarred as a troll sympathizer.
Hey, I’ve criticized a number of comments by IS and others, so how come I don’t get to be labeled an elitist? Fair is fair.
IS,
Formula? Talk about trying to smear the opposition with your own weakness! Did you learn that trick from Karl? You had to have. That’s one of his signature plays. That’s really funny coming from a propagandist – inadvertent or not. I see you found the shrimp cocktail. Have another Long Island Ice Tea.
IS,
The propensity to inject words not stated, or to give one’s desired meaning to a word (that is in conflict with the accepted definition), is a trait found in most extremists. As they say in the HULU commercials; “that’s how we roll”.
For those that fall into that category, what has been said is not nearly as important as who said it.
And here comes Troll with the exact same play.
I’ll say something for you boys. You’re consistent.
Mike Appleton,
If you need a derogatory title to feel that you are a member; you’re not an elitist.
Sorry. Better luck next time.
Mespo:
“Ok, so jim byrne and lottakatz are now on the side of stupidity, perversion, and irrationality because they are free to be so”
Your first response to Jim make the point that you make in your posting above- If people blather on ignorantly then the can expect criticism. I agree with that and so did Jim. It only got weird when you expanded that to “stupid, perverse and irrational” thought or behavior, it wasn’t clear. Then you jumped him for saying he would be tolerant of that. It looked to me that you laid a ‘straw-man’ trap and Jim fell into it.
To address your comment directly, hell YES. If it’s not illegal or doesn’t infringe my rights I’ll not only tolerate it but I’ll defend it no matter how odious it is to me. I won’t end up kicking hippies around because they have long hair or stealing McCain signs out of my neighbor’s yard. Tempting as the later was.
I’d rather be in a Trolls company (and I’m NOT calling Jim a troll) on the matter that in the company of a learned man that would possibly limit free thought and action that was legal. You indicate you would limit your displeasure to criticism. Fine. That’s your right.
What’s funny (comic relief) about tolerating or advocating free thought and action that is legal? I thought that’s a virtue of a free society.
BIL:
the shrimp are very good here and I dont care much for Long Island Ice Tea.
But the Manhattan’s and Rusty Nails are going down well. Ah cocktail hour, kick back enjoy a drink, read the blatherings of pinkos knowing they will never run anything except their mouths. Although I will give the head commiefacist credit, he did put GM under his spell.
Pinkos.
Nice. There go the pants!
1955 called and wants its’ insults back.
The caterer is that way . . .
BIL:
are you taking your pants off for a little “self endulgence”? Please, no need to announce this.
Full Moon Over Shrimp Cocktail.
It’s not just descriptive of your performance IS, it’s a double entendre that says a lot about you.
Enjoy.
Bye now, go find a new playmate. I have traffic.
BIL:
you have a job?
Buddha Is Laughing
lotta,
“Yeah, what mespo said. Freedom of Speech is not the equivalent of the Freedom From Ridicule. Freedom To Be Ignorant, on the other hand, is a choice a person – citizen or not – is free to make.”
Then we agree.
“Just like when someone says something aggressively stupid, they shouldn’t be shocked when they get the smack down. I was willing to let Jim be as stupid as he wanted up to the un-American comment”
If he is a “problem” because he advocates a live and let live attitude- short of illegal/infringing acts- perpetrated by ignorant, stupid irrational, perverse, (and I’ll expand that to cover) craven, wrong-headed, rabidly misogynistic, bigoted, foolish, unenlightened fellow citizens as a recognition of their right to free thought, speech and action, then so am I.
I think it’s fundamental to a free society to have that attitude and un-American to not have that attitude. I even defend what I believe un-American thought, speech and action so long as it meets the ‘not illegal/infringing’ test. That is exactly the great virtue of a free society and the American ideal IMO.
I and the better-half belonged to the ACLU for years. We stopped sending them money out of laziness. When the Nazi’s (M*****-F*****s all) wanted to march in Skokie (?sp), a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago and were denied the permit, the ACLU went to court to overturn that ban as an infringement of the 1st Amendment. They (ACLU) lost thousands of members, they were bleeding resources. The better-half and I decided that not only was it our duty to re-up our membership but to send them extra money, which we could hardly afford at that time.
I’m a bleeding-heart liberal, a long-time problem, and damn proud of it.
I’ll defend your right to ridicule my attitude even as I tell you you’re full of c***. It’s my nature
========================
Former Federal LEO: “Lottakatz, Are you a Mr. or a Ms.?”
See second to last para above
lottakatz, hear, hear. Great points.
I second Mike A. entirely!
Lottakatz,
Well, a fine lotta help you aint! Better half pertains to either spouse–boy n’ girl–and a’cussin’ up a storm these days don’t mean just a man’s words.
You need to defend your honor man!…or woman. Look what Jill et al is sayin:
_________________________________
Jill:
“Lottakatz, at least, laid out a point by point reading of your arguments. I think it is fair to take *her* seriously and dispute *her*, but your statement above is a personal attack which *she* does not deserve.”
*************
I merely took *her* argument to its absurd logical extension. Not a personal attack on her but her reasoning. That’s precisely the difference I am arguing for.
___________________________________
Most ‘portantly, Gyges said I should be tippin’ by Stetson hat your way, by we Southern men juss do not do that to other men!
I thought you are male, that avatar ‘n all…
lotta,
Live and let live is fine. I think you mistake the nature of what just happened though. Jim didn’t get the hammer because “he is a “problem” because he advocates a live and let live attitude- short of illegal/infringing acts- perpetrated by ignorant, stupid irrational, perverse, (and I’ll expand that to cover) craven, wrong-headed, rabidly misogynistic, bigoted, foolish, unenlightened fellow citizens as a recognition of their right to free thought, speech and action”. The live and let live was fine. The defense of that right was fine. Using the label “un-American” in the context he used it, well that falls under the bear description I gave you earlier.
He had his choice in language. He paid the price of that choice. He resorted to a propagandist smear tactic one time too many for me and I took action. You act as if either me or mespo somehow banned Jim. We can’t. This isn’t our blog. Jim left of his own volition because he’d been made to look like a disingenuous propagandist by more than one person. Vince, Mike S and mespo all disassembled him. That I was the straw that broke the camels back is of no concern to me. Words can be a rough game, he shoulda wore a cup, but at least no bones get broken. This isn’t Iran. But unless the Prof banned him, he’s free to come back and either reform his ways or get run through the shredder again. Also his choice.
If I want to hoist an attacker upon his own words, I’ll do it. It’s my nature. You don’t like the way I handled it? I’m not trying to anger you, because I do genuinely like you lotta, but too bad. I don’t work for you although your displeasure is duly noted. I was exercising my Free Speech Right just as Jim was and you are in voicing your displeasure. If the Prof disapproves he knows all he as to do is ask me to leave. Hell, I do as the regulars ask me 95% of the time. You didn’t like my explanation? I don’t owe you an explanation or a justification. I gave you one because your a nice person and deserved an answer, but you’ll have to take what you got. You think I’m full of crap? That’s your right too just as it is your right to say so. I’ll defend that right. Just don’t be offended if I exercise my Right to Ignore or my Right to Disagree. Again, because it wasn’t the disagreeing that got Jim in trouble. I personally think education benefits us all and that tolerating ignorance as a matter of societal systemic health is a bad thing. If you want to lump in with Jim and defend the right to be ignorant and ignore the duty I feel everyone should ethically owe to work to better us all as a species, that’s your choice to make as it was his. The disagreement wasn’t at issue. It was his tactics. Anyone willing to drop to the “un-American and elitist” smear tactic when cornered in that context is using, as I illustrated, Neocon demonization language – propaganda – and I’ll treat them with the same kindness Jim received. Feel free to skip it should it happen again. But there’s a difference between “run off” and “run away”. Jim wasn’t run off.
FFLEO, Jill, Mike A
Thanks for your support of my ideas. I respect your ideas so that means a lot to me. I’d also like to have a respectful consensus with Mespo and BIL since I am generally in agreement with them and value their input. I think we’re getting there once the issue is cast in a fundamental light. Also, I still feel kindly toward BIL for “The Holographic Universe”, I’m making progress on it.
I suspect that folks may have gotten into an ‘attack’ mode from arguing with IA here and elsewhere and didn’t actually consider Jim’s posting, take it for no more- or less- than it was and responded more harshly than it warranted. Still, I never met good bait I didn’t want to rise to if I had the time. Busy day today so I got back here late.
I’d like Jim to come back also. One of the posters here said that hanging around this blawg changed their mind. Good for them! That’s a pretty heavy concept generally reserved for a religious epiphany or an excellent hallucinogenic drug. I value the arguments here because some of them have been clarifying for me also.
Jim, what I have read of his (yours if you’re reading) actually struck me as a semi-loose-cannon liberal. I share that trait un-apologetically and liked the company. Sometime just a flat-out, simple declaration of intent and viewpoint is refreshing and brings a discussion from ‘tittle and jot’ territory back to fundamentals. The posts of Jim’s I remember seemed like ‘right, get back to basics, argue the higher principle’ type statements. I could be confused though; he should continue to post to clear up my possible confusion.
.
FFLEO: I’m a female, and I love a nice Stetson. At one time my hair looked kind of like the avatar- nice swath of wild and independent white to one side, but I was never as pretty as Johnny Depp. He IS easy on the eyes and Sweeny is a great one for justice- how could he not be my avatar?
I fear I’ve said too much
lotta,
Speaking of The Holographic Universe, you might like this. It’s a scholarly paper, a dissertation for some class or publishing project, I’m not sure, but it was good.
“Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” by Alan D. Sokal (1995)
It’s online. Here’s the link.
http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html
Don’t be intimidated by the title, lol, it’s actually pretty interesting if you are fascinated by the nexus of physics and philosophy. I found it being discussed over on Popehat’s blog.
Well lottakatz, I ’bout fell off my chair. Thank you for clearing that up. I should have known that Jill would have known another woman’s’ postings…female intuition.
I agree mostly with you about Jim Byrne. I think our crew of well-educated bulldogs was a bit unfair and I think we are misusing/overusing the term troll, kind of like we are misusing terrorist, generally speaking; too broad of a nomenclatural brush for me. I actually learned something from the crew’s back-and-forth with Mr. Byrne.
For better or worse what drives us as lawyers is stoking the crucible of ideas that either tempers thought or consumes it. That Jim Byrne doesn’t want that heat is understandable but not admirable. At no point did anyone attack Jim (or lotta for that matter); it was an attack on an idea–unformed though it may have been. If he took that as insult and packed up his marbles, how revealing and so be it. BIL was exactly right in calling out that old tactic of questioning one’s loyalty when reason fails. Simply put, no one has the obligation to suffer foolish ideas or insults gladly, and Byrne’s purposeful misstating of counterpoints and impugning the patriotism of someone who has contributed and contributes much on daily basis to this blog gets my “Irish” up. Some may lament JB’s absence, but I relish it. Bring out the next troll.
Gyges
IS: “If we’re going to have this discussion, we’re going to need to define conservative and progressive. I suggest we both go to Wikipedia (or other encyclopedia or dictionary) and use their definitions.”
Thanks for the once removed tip of the hat. I enjoyed this series of postings of yours because one of the first things I learned about negotiation was that you had to have a common language, always take a little dictionary with you and ask for explicit agreement that words meant what they meant based on a standard reference and note that in the docuent as needed. I just ate that up because I love the dictionary. It became a joke in my office that rivaled my love of misplaced punctuation.
The dictionary saved my butt more often than I can count in negotiations, arguments and briefs to third parties etc. I would have our secretary drag our big Random House to negotiations and set it on the table next to her for easy look-up. It was theater but it made a point and every point counted. LOL. You’re a guy that’s been around the track a time or two I see. I’m thinking I’d have liked to have you on my team back in the day.
The following post is why Jim departed. Buddha, you know that I like you a lot, I have said that several times, and I recently repeated it, but telling people to go ‘fornicate’ themselves and to ‘lube up’ is simply unfair and not a debatable style any reasonable self-respecting debater would engage. As Gyges mentioned, Prof Turley ‘warned’ you before and you issued a mea culpa and vowed never to do what you have just done, in my estimation.
To be sure, this blawg would *not* be the same without you and I am not sure that it would continue to ‘thrive’ if you departed or were booted off. I prefer to see a daily Buddha Green.
Your logical arguments are fine and meaningful without the high school giggle-spit vulgarity and those threads of yours with such crudity, I skip over—just as I do with the real trolls like MSNBC, etc. Again, I have no right to moderate what I consider trash talk, but I am asking you as a cyber-friend to tune out just the “Lube up, Buttercup” type comments that only denigrate your intelligence, in my eyes, and reflect negatively on Professor Turley and this blawg.
By all means at your disposal, continue to hammer people hard with on-point, definitive refutations/rebuttals and make them squirm in your logic; however, please do not demean them with ad hominem nonsense that is non-rebuttable with any decency. If any regular here told me to do the things you told Jim Byrne to perform, I would definitely leave this blawg because the most accomplished logician cannot reasonably rebut anonymous vulgarity across the Internet.
Thanks.
_________________________________________
Quote:
Jim Byrne
1, June 23, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Buddha said; Lube up, buttercup.
Wow Buddha! You’re a true assett to this blawg.
I won’t stoop to your level. And I will not continue to provide commentary on a blog that permits such.
You win! I hope you’re happy.
Much thanks to Prof. Turley for providing, what has the potential of being, a forum to debate our differences.
Goodbye
End Quote}
____________________________________
Buddha Is Laughing
jim byrne 1, June 22, 2009 at 11:15 pm
“Do you really want to be on the side of tolerating that which is stupid, perverse, or irrational?”
As long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others; YES!
—-
Well there’s your problem right there. It’s two fold.
First, …. Second, there is problem and quite simply it’s you if that is truly how you feel.
************************************
Dude, for the love of Allah, read that exchange. “there is problem and quite simply it’s you if that is truly how you feel.” That’s the issue. That statement is so wrong and it’s a very strong and personal statement. I was amazed by that statement. That statement was so amazing to me I didn’t even find it odd that Jim would say he couldn’t believe the “un-American rhetoric”. The way to avoid being called un-American is to avoid saying someone (implicit to me; everyone who believes similarly) is a problem if they believe something so fundamental to a persons concept of their national (American/Constitutional) identity.
I don’t really care that the right has hi-jacked ‘un-American’. They tried to hi-jack the flag too. Think of a cuss word that fits easily with ‘* them’ and you know how I feel about that. I don’t fly a flag any more often or less often because some *hole wants to wrap the rape of the Constitution in it. I’m one of those people that think the flag is strongest when its burning in citizen protest. If it tweaks you up that someone would use un-American to characterize your/Mespo’s rhetoric that’s your spin on it. A personal insult met with a personal insult (implied but there) is just parity. I agree “Words can be a rough game”. I see parity, you see something else.
Who’s full of *? I put a smiley behind it, jeeze, ‘you’ was meant as generalized. It was a statement of philosophical outlook. I’ll not put a smiley behind it if I were ever to mean it personally regarding anyone but I’d rather not get that twitched up over 0′s and 1′s. It’s not healthy. Better to make a salad and have a beer.
Apparently you nor Mespo want to put people in re-education camps for thoughts or actions that are legal so I’m fine with that. We can agree on that. I’m still amazed that such you would use the word ‘problem’ in such a personal way regarding someone who reflects my political philosophy but really, if that’s the worst characterization I (and probably most of the people here including you) had to deal with professionally or personally we would have lived a blessed life. I think I can learn to get over it, with time and effort; maybe just another beer
I will though check out the link, I’m sure it’ll be interessting.
Former Federal LEO
1, June 24, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Well lottakatz, I ’bout fell off my chair. Thank you for clearing that up.
————
Really? Why?
*WARNING*WARNING*WARNING*WARNING*WARNING*WARNING*
Be very, very, careful FFLEO. Very. VERY.
LOL
Never mind you big ol’ Stetson wearing gallute you 
G’night all, I have a big day tomorrow- This kind of brought a smile to my face(and a ‘Whaaaaat?’ head-shake)in a pre-verted and irrational way; it’s worth at least a hundred Wall Street bonus caps if your bent morally; not that I’m admitting to anything:
retirees torture financier
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25683738-401,00.html
The only virtue of laws and a society that enforces them is that their absence burdens victims with enforcing justice. Not a good thing
Lotta,
You think what you like, but I think you are missing the issue. Attacking one’s patriotism is a McCarthy tactic. The Neocons didn’t invent it. Hell, Americans didn’t invent it, it’s a tactic old as nations, but the next question is inevitably “Are you now are have you ever been . . .” It’s junk and has no proper place in political discourse either formal or informal other than the noted propaganda and smear purposes. I’ve been known to hurl some fire, but I’ve never used that fire for that very reason. The unlearned lessons of history are doomed to repeat. It’s not only junk, it’s highly at risk of turning into high comedy considering in that the person in question’s citizenship is suspect as Mike S evidenced. I don’t hide behind patriotism. I’ve made it clear time and again I’m for the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration. My loyalty to the USA ends should those principles and documents be abandoned. I’m no jingoist. But that doesn’t mean I have to have my patriotism questioned without taking action either. I respect the rights of others, but I do expect them to reciprocate. Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but it’s the weapon of choice of fools and the untrustworthy (those who don’t have your interests or freedoms at heart) – neither of which I have a duty to tolerate let alone quietly. In a martial arts class, you learn to turn an attackers weapon against them. He brought the broken bottle of “un-American Brand McCarthy Ale” and I fed it back to him. Same thing.
Again, you are mistaking the usage of the words “un-American” with the usage of the tactic. I don’t give a damn what he calls me. I’ve been called a lot “worse” than that by other trolls if you just want to use the offensive yardstick. What I’ve been called IRL without flinching would make your hair turn plaid and go into witness relocation. I’d have thought you’d have realized by now I have very thick skin. But the tactic of attacking one’s patriotism? Unacceptable from anyone. And I do mean anyone. We were boxing and he pulled a switchblade? I don’t care he owns one. I care he pulled it.
I’m going to make a not too huge a leap of logic and state that most of the regulars here and quite a few of the transients are here because they are concerned about human rights and crimes against the Constitution. No one wants witch hunts. I’ve said all along the issue that keeps me coming back is seeing criminals who attacked the Constitution put in jail regardless of party affiliation, but “un-American” has a bad history in addition to the modern abuses by people like Jim.
The House Un-American Activities Committee.
The tactic itself is Anti-American and that’s un-American. I don’t care what name he calls me. The words themselves have no particular ju-ju as it were. I have a very Carlin take on language. What Jim did tactically is simply a danger to the ideals of our Founding Fathers. History tells me so. More than once in American history alone. Would you like a side order of Stalin’s Pogroms? They’re beat flavored.
You seem like a very free spirited, well reasoned and caring person as it clearly informed what you’ve said and I admire that but civilization does need some boundaries. History suggests that not wielding the patriotism stick in this context is a real good one. Something to think about and I’ll leave it at that.
BIL: “What I’ve been called IRL”. In real life?
I take your point. There are few words that I make usage exceptions for because words IMO are just descriptors and as such inherently neutral. The word that drives me nuts is Nazi. The trend to use Nazi as shorthand for fascist is perverse in the extreme IMO. Depending on the debate I’ll use fascist routinely but I stay away from Nazi.
What the Nazi’s did was so singularly monstrous that if you’re going to use it there should be a parity of atrocity. ‘Pol Pot was a Nazi’ is descriptive of a kind and parity of action that is acceptable IMO. “Femnazi” is outrageously poor usage. (Um, is the statement ‘Rush should be castrated for popularizing “Femnazi”‘ too over the top?)
There are few good uses for the word Nazi. That’s not to say I haven’t just thrown it out there on occasion but I do try to recognize and respect that the word transcends its use as an acronym. Or a cheap shot.
I can leave it at that also.
lotta,
I’m with you on the usage of Nazi. It’s often misapplied. I really find the misuse of fascist and fascism annoying – especially by politicians. A hardline Neocon GOP’er calling ANYONE a fascist is simply ridiculous in light of the Secret Energy Task Force and their roll in the violation of our laws and the illegal invasion of Iraq. That was an example of letting corporations make the decisions, just like dear old Mussolini advocated. Yet they try and try to slap the “fascist” label on progressives just like they try the to keep alive the old “socialism is evil” trope despite the fact many of our allies are socialist countries and that some of these countries have the happiest and healthiest citizens in the world. Pure Orwellian doublespeak on the usage. Next time someone uses the word fascist against you, try asking them to define fascism. It’s usually good for a laugh. 9 out of 10 times they have no clue what they are talking about.
“Do you really want to be on the side of tolerating that which is stupid, perverse, or irrational?”
As long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others; YES!” (Jim)
——————————————————————
Mespo:
“Ok, so jim byrne and lottakatz are now on the side of stupidity, perversion, and irrationality because they are free to be so”
—————————————————————-
“there is problem and quite simply it’s you if that is truly how you feel.” (BIL)
——————————————————————
I don’t think tolerating a belief is in contadiction with criticizing it. I’m an atheist. I live in a hyper religious environment. I will say flat out that not one of the relgious beliefs I have heard; not the new age, not the jewish, not the christian, not the muslim, not the hindu, not the buddhist, make any sense to me. I find many of these religious tenants harmful and destructive to the human mind/body/spirit. I find many of them absolutely appalling. So to me, I’m not going to back down on any criticism of religion but I, by honoring our Constitution, have a duty to tolerate the existence of religion.
During the run up to the Iraq war, questioning the idea that we ought to attack Saddam was considered “stupid, perverse, or irrational” by a rather large majority of our population. Bush certainly pushed that way of thinking in the public sphere, even encouraging calling people who thought otherwise, traitors. That silenced many people who had doubts. I remember how scary it was to criticize the invasion of Iraq. So one person’s stupid, perverse or irrational ideas may be another person’s well researched/reasonsed argument that isn’t popular in the current social climate (Galileo for example). It may also be simply, stupid, perverse or irrational. Either way, I believe our Constitution protects it.
Mike A. wrote that the most dangerous counter to an idea is another idea. I believe he is correct about that.
Jill,
I think my response to lotta addresses that issue of content over tactic. Mike A is correct that the most dangerous counter to an idea is another idea. The idea of what was wrong with Jim’s tactic has been explained. You said “one person’s stupid, perverse or irrational ideas may be another person’s well researched/reasonsed argument that isn’t popular in the current social climate” and you are correct. That’s not whole picture though. You miss that argument doesn’t happen in a vacuum so social mores will always come into play. The best one can do is to pare down to the barest logics and use ethics as a guideline instead of the alternative value loaded (and therefore intrinsically subject to misuse) terminology sets provided by religion or political parties. I should also point out that Galileo, my man from Padua, didn’t merely run afoul of social mores. He ran afoul of the wealthy and well armed religious organization that had dominance over said mores at the time. It wasn’t that he threatened the mores proper, he threatened their effectiveness as a control mechanism of the Church. In addition, democracy is supposed to be a marketplace of competing ideas. This by it’s nature means some win and some lose. Yes – stupidity, ignorance and perversity (which I’ve left out of my comments unless referencing as perversity is an individual value judgment more often than a logical conclusion) are indeed protected thought and speech. But when one puts a bad/stupid/ignorant thought into action, even if that’s just speaking it, one still suffers the consequences of their missteps – just as one can suffer the consequences of missteps on the path of putting a good idea into action (we call this “misadventure”). It’s the rules of natural selection as applied to memes. That’s the universe in action. Mankind’s social laws have little to do with that.
Lottakatz,
I also have been a lifelong and current supporter of the ACLU and I doubt there is a dimes worth of difference in our support for free speech or human rights. However, going back to the specific posting by JT which begins this thread, my question is at what point does, what to me at least, is an obvious scam, become subject to government intervention.
For instance: I might represent to you that I own the Brooklyn Bridge by right of my birth in Brooklyn and nobility of character. I then sell it to you. Am I committing fraud, or am I exercising my free speech and thought rights? I think that the Church of Scientology is committing fraud in posing as a religion in order to escape the IRS and government scrutiny. While I can’t personally prove this, I am of the opinion that proof probably exists in the form of the early musings of L.Ron Hubbard and in the way that it appears that one has to buy their way to enlightenment.
Incidentally, you might notice that I wrote part of the above to make clear that this is my opinion and I have no actual evidence. This is because Scientology has a history of
being litigious and from my point of view tries to silence critical speech about it’s doings. I know it becomes a dicey question when you balance the right of free speech/thought up against the governments duty to prosecute fraud. Frankly, on this I have no answers, but my opinion is that an investigation of this movement is needed, that isn’t tainted by political fear, or necessity.
As to Jim Byrne, I though Mespo equating the two of you is incorrect. However, in my opinion Mr. Byrne is a very smart person, with a right wing agenda, that slips his knives in disingenuously and that is my problem with him. To me he doesn’t come at any issue in a straightforward manner, but cleverly hides his points. However, when it came to his defense of the “birther” movement I think his agenda of disinformation became clear. Below is the link to the original thread here where I called him on his disingenuity.
Make up your own mind as to whether I was being unfair.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/06/18/supreme-court-rules-against-constitutional-right-to-access-to-dna-testing/#comments
Lotta,
I come at it from a much more Orwellian point of view (His essays, not 1984): conservative, liberal, progressive (IS was right in that the opposite of conservative is progressive, but progressive doesn’t equal liberal like the modern usage implies) are basically meaningless the way they are used now, at least in American debate. They had specific meanings once that have become distorted over time to the point where to IS conservative was “us” and liberal was “them.”
I’m a sucker for accuracy.
Lotta,
That’s in line with my original point. Conservative doesn’t mean corporatist, or capitalist, or authoritarian, etc. Our current political language is so limited in terms that it can only accomplish a reduction of an entire menagerie of thought into only two animals, making the Us V Them tactic much easier.
Guess some 1984 did creep into my Orwellian after all.
Mr. Spindell,
Thanks for clearing up the confusion.
If we express a thought that has been aligned with the liberal philosophy, we have a left-winged agenda. Those that express a thought that has been attributed to a conservative ideal, have a right-winged agenda. Or is it only an agenda when it differs from your opinion?
I think the comment left by Gyges (above) would concur with my opinion that you have over-simplified political differences of opinion so that they may easily fit into a convenient bundle. That “convenient bundle” makes it easy for the visually impaired person to swing at anything that resembles a certain shape, but it hardly represents that which society would consider to be the rational decision of one who is not so impaired.
Why do you take the time to express or promote your individual opinion on a subject, if it is not your “agenda” to influence the thoughts of others? The only way to avoid being accused of having an agenda is to remain silent or effectively silent by not taking a position.
Aren’t most, if not all, opinions intended to promote an agenda? Aren’t they all an effort to present a concurring or alternative point of view? Is not the agenda to provide information that may influence the rationalization of others?
I agree with you. Jim has expressed views that would be associated with conservatism. Is that a shameful act? What most of us today have accepted as customary was, at some point in time, a liberal or conservative agenda. I find Jim’s point of view, when stated, to be obvious.
In reading the comments on the link that you provided, all you did was come to a personal conclusion.
Jim said; “The country was frustrated. They wanted change..and the person with the least baggage got elected.
Was Obama really the most qualified candidate we could find? I hope not.
I’m still not sure if President Obama was elected because he is black…or in spite of being black. I think the former is more likely. -Not that there is anything wrong with that….That was just the sentiment that prevailed.
I don’t think the 3 major networks are conservative. I think FOX is, but CBS and NBC lean too far to the left to be considered conservative. –If your political views are extremely liberal; I can see how the big three would all seem conservative.
I don’t think becoming sheeple was a conscious choice. I think the mainstream media lulled them into it. More importantly, both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the current state of affairs. Not enough people are willing to stand up and say NO MORE.
Hitler was just a man. By himself, he was nothing. He had no power until he had followers, and as long as he had sheeple..he had no one to say NO MORE.
Too many want to blame BUSH (like Hitler), but none of them are willing to recognize that they have no power unless great numbers go along with their decisions. –I put the blame on Congress.”
You made the leap needed to arrive at your conclusion. Let’s take another look at the last paragraph again.
“Too many want to blame BUSH (like Hitler), but none of them are willing to recognize that they have no power unless great numbers go along with their decisions. –I put the blame on Congress.”
It looks to me like Jim wasn’t comparing the actions of anybody to those of Hitler. It looks to me as if he was comparing the actions, or better stated, the lack thereof, of those with the ability to prevent the atrocities. Much like our Congress has the ultimate control over our president. Could the atrocities of the Bush Administration have taken place without the support of Congress?
Further reading of the comments left by both you and Jim indicate that Jim expressly denied any intent of associating President Obama with the actions taken by Hitler. He repeatedly denied that intent. That wasn’t good enough for you. You decided that since some on the right wing fringe have suggested a possible link between the acts of Hitler to the campaign promises of Obama that must be the hidden intent of Jim’s statement.
Troll,
You are entitled to your opinions and I have mine. Do I have an agenda…damn straight. So do you and so does JB. To me the difference is he was trying to disguise his agenda and I think that is disingenuous. You don’t? Fine.
Buddha,
Go “fornicate yourself”! You really need to go “fornicate yourself”. You panzy-a**ed little fektard. You’re an ignorant, feckless, little twit.
** -While this is not my communication style of choice, it is yours, and since it appears to be welcomed and acceptable on this blog, I may as well make use of it. I’ll apologize to those who find this to be offensive language (as do I), but sometimes you must make use of the “native tongue” in order to effectively communicate.
Lottakatz, Jill, and a few others have repeatedly demonstrated how your personal conclusion is adverse to that which was stated. However, you continue to be too freaking ignorant to see the error.–I sincerely appreciate those of you who had the courage to voice your opinion in support of individual freedoms, at the risk of opening yourself to attack by mespo and buddha.
FFLEO, I don’t need to defend myself from ridiculous insinuations. Another thread attempted to discredit me by claiming that my country of origin was not the U.S.A. -Even if such were true, it would be of no consequence to the argument presented. I chose not to post, even an abbreviated, CV, so as to avoid presumptive determination of my position. However, I will disclose this; I am a veteran of the U.S. Navy, and held a TS clearance. I am not aware of any foreign nationals that can make the same claim.
Now back to Buddha:
“If you found this insulting, well, you did to yourself. Although you didn’t use the word itself, you did indeed describe yourself as a proponent of ignorance.”
No I did not. YOU’RE A FLAT-OUT LIAR! I challenge you to locate, and quote, any statement I made that would indicate that I am a proponent of ignorance (other than engaging you). In addition, if you’re not tolerant of many things, of which you are not a proponent, you would have no idea of what tolerance is. That may be the source of our disagreement.
Tolerating became an “advocate for” (mespo) and then a “proponent of” (Buddha), only because you needed it to. Your inability to differentiate words serves well to exemplify what I would call “the educated ignorant”. -The mindless prattle of an obnoxious lemming.
You are so intent on finding a fight, that, as demonstrated above, and in a number of your posts, you freely admit that a word wasn’t used, but you’re going to act as if it was anyway, because you needed it as the basis of your diatribe. Are you really that desperate for attention?
If you want to “own” the un-American rhetoric, feel free to do so. That’s your choice. When you pick up the un-American name tag, and place it over your shirt pocket, you do so freely, and without my assistance. Your wounds are self-inflicted. I didn’t place the label upon your chest; you did.
What I really find disturbing, is that the two most vocal advocates for constricting individual freedom are elders of the legal profession. While we, as a society, have been reluctantly tolerant of the demonstrated ignorance of groups like KKK; the fact is, we tolerate them because of what we, as Americans, consider to be that which is protected. –The freedom to be stupid, perverse, and ignorant…as long as it does not interfere with the protected rights of others.
Do I support, advocate for, am a proponent of, education? YES
“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
I support that mandate. Always have, and always will, but I refuse to shove it down the throat of those who have reached adulthood.
Mr. Spindell,
Please support the rationale used to conclude that Jim’s statement was covertly intended to associate President Obama with Adolf Hitler. In other words; show your work.
We all know that you arrived at a personal conclusion. You’re an articulate man. If you arrived at your conclusion logically, you should be able to demonstrate what led you to that conclusion.
I’m not baiting you. I just don’t see it. Please enlighten me. Guilt by assumed association is convenient, but fails to permit logic to prevail.
Troll,
Don’t waste your time on Mike Spindell. He, like Buddha, arrived at the conclusion that best fit his fancy.
“It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf.” —Thomas Paine
These three quotes from Ayn Rand seem particularly appropriate.
“Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.”
“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.”
“The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it.”
The legend lives!
Jim,
Man, I thought you were dead. LOL (or waiting outside of BIL’s house so that you could promptly redirect his awaiting finger.
Come over later today, if you can. L needs your help. We’ll cook you dinner.
I’ve been holding down the fort here. (with some help from lottakatz and Jill)
Troll,
I should be able to get freed up in a couple of hours. I’ll call.
BTW -Be sure to tell “L” that by supporting the freedoms protected by the Constitution, she became a conservative wingnut neocon (I really wish the definition of which would be standardized).
What is a NEOCON?
It may help for this blawg to provide a link to the accepted definition of terms. Then again, the ambiguity of such terms makes the use more personal.
Byrne is back in a tight tag team with Troll. Over on the thread “Obama Adopts Cheney Policy,” Byrne wrote, about Obama, that “He supposedly traveled to Pakistan in 1981. However, U.S. Citizens, traveling on a U.S. Passport, were prohibited from going to Pakistan.”
As posted over there, this is Not True. Travel to Pakistan by U.S. citizens was not banned in 1981: http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf
This factoid was caught at the Obama Conspiracy site:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/open-questions/
The poster there had this to say: QUOTE
First the Travel Advisory’s true document designation is No. 81-33A. The 81 indicates the year issued and the 33A basically means its the 33rd release in that year of all Travel Advisory releases regardless of country or zone. The numbering sequence does seem specific to Travel Advisory’s only and should not be confused or numbered along with Travel Warnings or Consular Information Sheets (CIS). Note that it is not the 33rd issuance that is only specific for Pakistan. The prior advisories as well as the ones that followed for 1981 could be any nation or region besides Pakistan with no apparent numbering format being followed.
Second, don’t bother with the ”Department Publication M-264″ mentioned in the Advisory itself. It is an ongoing and frequently updated guide for visa and similar procedures issued for the benefit of travelers. It’s content has absolutely no bearing on the information given in the Advisory and is much akin to being a standard footer for all these types of State Department issued documents.
Finally somebody wrote “State 209063 – 8-7-81″ in the lower right corner at some stage of the transfer from film to image to PDF. I have no idea what it means other the obvious date 8-7-81 (or maybe 8-17-81?) after State 209063. UNQUOTE
That travel advisory is on the State Department archives maintained by the Federal Depository Library of U. Illinois Chicago, for 1981:
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/Pakistan.htm
L appreciated your adaptation of her favorite word into your gracious response to BIL. If he only knew.
She also wnats to know if she’ll make more money, now that she is a neocon.
You gotta see this:
Last night, Olbermann gave a Bronze Worst Person in the World award to Rep Neugebauer (R-Texas) for signing onto the Posey bill: “When asked if he thought Obama was a U.S. citizen, Neugebauer relied on the tried and true birther excuse, ‘I don’t know I have never seen him produce documents that would say one way or another.’” http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-GOP-birther
Apparently unaware of the fact that Obama may well run in 2012, he thinks it does not apply to Obama. He seems also unaware that Obama has already complied with the express terms of the proposed bill by obtaining and releasing an official certified birth certificate to press and public.
Here is the Olbermann video. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#31533909
It is interesting that World Nut Daily, which is leading the birther charge, has actually confirmed that the certification is authentic: “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
Jim Byrne and Troll,
I gave you the benefit of the doubt; however, your back and forth regarding “L” or your pets, or whatever, has nothing to do with the topic. If you continue, I certainly will not disparage you but I will not reply to either of your screen names regarding any topic.
Er, um…
I thought this thread was about
Cult or Miscavige of Justice? Newspaper Runs Indepth Exposé on Church of Scientology
FFLEO,
“L” is the first letter of his wife’s name.
My experience here is limited. However, I have never seen you object to limited off-topic discussion in the past.
Either way, I will acquiesce.
understood
Is that a chicken on a toilet on your avatar, Scotsman? Or are you just glad to see me?
Well Jim McCarthy, as least I’m not a fascist tactic using non-citizen enemy of liberty.
So much for whatever dignity you’d maintained.
Let’s be clear on something too. The line you crossed tactically? You don’t have the balls to say that IRL to my face, sport. Your kind rarely if ever does. You can take that to the bank. And that line you crossed also negates any criticism of over how I handled making you piss your pants and run away in faux disgust when your true nature was revealed, you little propagandist sack of hot air girly man.
But I’m glad you came back to get run through the shredder again. And you did it all the while managing to annoy one of your supporters with yet more nonsense. You’re a regular cross between Gobbels and Trump when it comes to PR. Maybe this time you’ll do something stupid enough to get you banned, you elitist hack.
BTW, birther, I have a valid U.S. birth certificate, DL and passport. Do you? Not like you’d tell the truth. Citizen. You called Obama’s citizenship into question, you’ve attacked my patriotism, yet your citizenship is very much in question itself. You seem as unconcerned about that as you are about using Neocon tactics and sophistry when cornered.
Continue to be a bad example. It’s useful to have a McCarthiest to point to.
“The line you crossed tactically?”
Man up! Quote me.
“You don’t have the balls to say that IRL to my face, sport. Your kind rarely if ever does.”
I already did. You’re anonymous and exist only as an avatar. You’ve acquired “net balls”. -An illusion of power and strength, limited by your virtual personna. When I turn off my screen, you no longer exist. I can see how that frustrates you.
“I have a valid U.S. birth certificate, DL and passport. Do you?
Yes. I do. I have both a certificate of live birth, and a certification of live birth. I also have a couple of DD-214′s.
“You called Obama’s citizenship into question.”
Yes I did.
“you’ve attacked my patriotism”
LIAR! I did no such thing. The burden is on a claimant to point to the source; failing to provide such, the claim must be acknowledged for what it is -nothing more than fantasy -a lie.
Oops! I made a mistake.
To Buddha’s claim that I “called Obama’s citizenship into question.”
I responded with “Yes, I did.” -That’s not exactly true. I called Obama’s natural-born status into question. I did not question his citizenship.
Jim Byrne writes:
Go “fornicate yourself”! You really need to go “fornicate yourself”. You panzy-a**ed little fektard. You’re an ignorant, feckless, little twit.
** -While this is not my communication style of choice,
me: clearly, Jim, it *is* your communication style of choice, since you chose to use it and it locates you intellectually somewhere in the junior high sandbox in earshot of someone’s mommy who might rat you out to your mommy who might rat you out to your daddy who would whup your pansy ass for using the F-word.
you: I’ll apologize to those who find this to be offensive language (as do I), but sometimes you must make use of the “native tongue” in order to effectively communicate.
me: oh, don’t apologize after the fact. it is kind of cowardly if you can’t stand up to something you wrote not more than a few seconds ago. don’t go regretting it so soon. let yourself marinate in it just a little longer. let that self-righteous anger wash over you for at least an hour before you share your regrets and just a suggestion: if you really regret writing that, why not erase and start over with something more mature and adult?
tossing that silly and jejeune “fornicate yourself” instead of the real thing… means what? that you know all the words, know that we know all the words but want to, uh, protect yourself from getting your comments yanked by Prof. Turley for being all the way f-bombs instead of 8th grade catholic school girly f-bombs?
grow a set.
or stop bitching.
Folks,
I just want good discussions so that I can learn something. We have 2 other regulars who “tag team” as VT called it, and that seems disingenuous to me, even if it is not. If the tag team members are so close in physical proximity then they could e-mail, Instant Message, phone call, walk next door, or mosey across the street, or something else instead of using the blawg in pretentious displays of “look at me, I ‘got’ a friend and we’re havin’ dinner tonight”. Pardon me if I am wrong.
I really thought that with a title “VOTED THE #1 LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG OF THE TOP 100 LEGAL BLOGS BY THE ABA JOURNAL” that I could find a unique site without excessive trash talk and overt vulgarity, which are available elsewhere on the Internet. We all get somewhat off-topic sometimes, that is not a big problem, and I am not the judge, although I may occasionally request to return to the topic for the sake of continuity, even when I get off-topic.
We all slip with minor cuss words and those can be overlooked, if they are not incessant. Some of the original Topic Threads have such words—or much worse—and those are just part of the case or situation and discussions regarding such “words” are legitimate; however, cussin’ out another poster is clearly an ad hominem tactic to which any self-respecting debater would not subject himself or herself.
There are many intelligent people here and I look forward to more regulars like that, although I fear some new people might avoid this site if threads like this one—the fighting sections of which—become the norm.
I am weary of complaining and I will try to completely avoid such threads and let Professor Turley take the heat and/or the humiliation if it continues. Remember the upcoming Blawg 100 vote for next year and my vote will unlikely be positive if such excessive vulgarity and innuendo persist. However, I am just 1 vote.
Reiteratively, the most accomplished logician is incapable of reasonably rebutting anonymous vulgarity across the vast expanses of the Internet with any self-respect and without falling prey to the very vulgarisms he abhors.
I do care a lot about this blawg and many of the people here…
GWLawSchoolMom,
1, June 23, 2009 at 11:56 am -Buddha said; “you can end the “discussion” right now and go fornicate yourself and your little avatar, troll.
1, June 23, 2009 at 2:44 pm -Buddha said; “And while I do have to tolerate you, I can still tell you to go fornicate yourself once you’ve gone to “Anti-American.” Welcome to Freedom of Speech, Jim.
I must admit; I missed FFLEO’s comment to Buddha regarding what I consider to be foul language. I was under the impression that, much to my dismay, such language had been deemed acceptable. I was wrong and do apologize.
I think the rest of my posts do well to establish my ability to engage in heated debate while avoiding ad hominem attacks, and that fould language is not my standard means of communication.
“I think the rest of my posts do well to establish my ability to engage in heated debate while avoiding ad hominem attacks,”
Except when it suits your purposes to question someone’s citizenship, Jim McCarthy – Scotsman and Neocon Propagandist Until Proven Otherwise.
Your return is not off to an auspicious start, sport.
Troll & JB,
Based on you own words here’s the situation as I see it. If you two are friends as you allude, there is no reason no to believe it, you decided recently to have a little “fun” at the expense “of them elitist libruls,” and showed up here to what in your mind was raising hell. Only the deal with you two, if indeed there are two, is that you’re not dumb. Because of this JB came in stealth mode, slyly inserting his hard right wing viewpoints, into seemingly left wing format. Like all those of his faux conservative (real conservatives are principled)ilk certain memes slipped through. The first was sheeple, invented by some stupid left wingers to denote the people of the US, and which he used as a means of setting up his sub rosa attack on President Obama, and gratuitously bringing Hitler into the discussion. What’s curious about that usage since the comparison of The President to Hitler has been a Republican talking point for months now.
When called on it gutless Jim claims he never called the President Hitler and he’s technically correct, but he implied it and the use of the name made no sense for someone with his smarts, except in the sense I called him on. However, as might be noted in a subsequent post I gave him the benefit of the doubt and said I’d suspend judgment until he produced further posts. The evidence mounted as he went into his birther routine. Only the farthest out of crackpots
still finds this unproven. That sewed up the fact than rather than disinterested centrist Jimmy claims to be, he is far out on the political limb so to speak. It also refers back to his injecting Hitler and President Obama in the same post.
I don’t really care where someone is on the political spectrum here as long as they’re up front about their intentions and not here to “have some fun baiting the libruls.” To me JB’s problem was that he is disingenuous about where he is really coming from. Then what do you know. He provides 3 quotes from Ayn Rand. No centrist quotes that hack writing slattern, only someone out on the fringe, like JB.
Now suddenly comes Troll JB’s wing man. How fortuitous. How coincidental and how phony. Sorry guys, the “Libruls” here don’t play like what you imagine them to be from years of inhaling Rush, Bill, Sean and Glenn. Also you guys aren’t even able to understand the irony of asking JB to prove his citizenship. To bad if you’re out for fun, you really should get irony. Oh by the way anyone can claim to be a Navy Vet with a security clearance, where’s the proof, you who are so quick to besmirch our President? People with courage state their beliefs and back them up without playing games. You two failed the test.
Byrne has questioned Obama’s status as a natural born citizen, but presented no credible evidence or sources, and a lot of misinformation that I have tracked down. There was no ban on Pakistan travel in 1981. Obama’s COLB is valid. Pulitzer Prize winning reporters at St. Petersburg Times Politifact.com have had a Hawaiian official verify that it is authentic: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Hawaii no longer issues “certificates of live birth” or birth certificates, only a Certification of Live Birth, which is a legal birth certificate.
I have always thought that there are two rules at this site.
Rule 1: JT makes the rules.
Rule 2: See Rule 1.
Byrne never responded to the Pakistan travel fable, or to the sources debunking the forgery myth. Even assuming that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, Byrne floated a Donofrio-like theory that Obama was not a natural born citizen because his father was African. We debated that proposition extensively here, in threads that I have linked, or that can be accessed by typing “Donofrio” in the Search window above. I argued that there was no basis in the text or history of the Constitution for that theory. The Supreme Court rejected Donofrio’s case last year.
__________________________________
Vince Treacy wrote:
I have always thought that there are two rules at this site.
Rule 1: JT makes the rules.
Rule 2: See Rule 1.
__________________________________
Even I should be able to understand that.
Wonderful diatribe, I love a good argument. Just a blogroom brawl……brawlog? or maybe brawlg? or blograwl? I think I like blograwl kinda ryhmes with doggerel although no poetry here.
I realize that this thread got way off the beaten track many entries ago, but I wish to make a couple of observations without becoming embroiled in the birther controversy itself.
The arguments continue unabated because of fundamental misunderstandings regarding what constitutes proof of an assertion for legal purposes. The reason the fiction of the “reasonable man” has been developed over many hundreds of years in the common law is that we have learned from experience that perceptions of evidentiary sufficiency for a proposition can vary greatly from individual to individual. For some persons, the mere claim that another has committed a wrongful act is enough to merit the administration of immediate and severe punishment. For others, nothing less than the sworn testimony of God will support a conviction. Recognizing the need to provide stability and reliability in the regulation of personal, commercial and other relationships, which is all the law is about, we gradually settled upon the principle that in the resolution of disputes, the factual conclusions of the trier of fact (either a judge or a jury) will be deemed to constitute the truth of the matter if a person of ordinary intelligence, having reviewed the same testimony, documents and other evidence thoroughly, and having no personal stake or interest in the outcome for any reason, could reasonably have reached the same factual conclusions.
In other words, the law is not concerned with “truth” in the sense understood by those who demand absolute certainty. The law is not science or mathematics. We have continuously developed and refined rules to control the reliability and authenticity of both written and oral evidence, but all of this effort is intended not to provide certainty in ascertaining the truth, but to provide fairness in the process of the search.
Vince Treacy has done everything short of formally publishing a legal treatise demonstrating the president’s compliance with the eligibility provisions of the Constitution. The evidence is sufficient to satisfy every standard of proof. That there are those who decline to accept the sufficiency of that evidence is to be expected. However, that disinclination does not compel the submission of further and additional proof, even were that possible. The law does not require cumulative evidence, or evidence beyond that reasonably necessary to establish a fact. Quicquid demonstratae rei additur satis demonstratae frustra est. In short, it makes no difference that Orly Taitz remains unhappy.
“You kids get the Hell of my lawn!” – Orly Taitz
off
tiny keys
Mike Appleton,
What you succinctly stated has caused me abundant angst over the last 2 years in a District court case that is now in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Thank you for your descriptiveness of the process of the law v. the legal relevance of hard, irrefutable scientific facts.
” I challenge you to locate, and quote, any statement I made that would indicate that I am a proponent of ignorance (other than engaging you).”
–Jim Byrne
***************
I’ll take your challenge:
“People can, and will, believe in whatever they want to believe. They should be able to do so; even if it will hurt them in the eyes of others.”
–Jim Byrne
Does “… believe in whatever they want to believe,” exclude adopting ignorant positions? Ever heard of too much rationality hurting someone? The phrase “should be able to…” is normative and constitutes advocacy of a particular point of view.
Jill:
“So one person’s stupid, perverse or irrational ideas may be another person’s well researched/reasonsed argument that isn’t popular in the current social climate (Galileo for example).”
***********
Ideas are not equally valid; they are assayed by reason. Unreasonable ideas are inferior to reasonable ideas. While it’s true that reasonable people may differ, they usually don’t do so when presented with facts. In no sense was the RCC’s position vis a vis’ Galileo based on reason. To the contrary it was based on mythology or superstition or just plain lust for power, but in no sense was it reasonable. The problem with most people is they are prepared to accept any nonsense as rational because some dolt they know believes it. That doesn’t change it’s quality, it just reflects a “cop out” of reason and a bow to the fear of offending the proponent. You may wish to suffer fools glady (or silently) but I have no wish to burden my conscience with permitting one fool to recruit others without a whimper of dissent. You may recall the legal maxim Qui Tacet Consentit — silence implies consent. How do ethically permit ignorance to go unabated in your community when you know better?
A Note to Scotland:
Dear People of Scotland,
When I refer to some as “Scotsman”, please do not interpret that as using the term as a pejorative, but that it is being used for irony considering the context. I have nothing but the greatest fondness for the peoples of Scotland, indeed, there is a Scotsman in my own family woodpile. Some of my best friends are pains, er, um, well a Paine and a Payne to be precise, but I digress. Please rest assured, I in no way meant to imply that Scotland endorses stupidity, a dishonest nature and/or the bad habits of Neocon propagandists.
Begging Your Pardon of Any Mistaken Appellation,
Your Truly,
Robert Ethan Buddha Humoresque Bruce, Esq. (ret.) R.S.V.P., B.Y.O.B., C.O.D., Q.E.D.
Hi All!
I’ve been humming a song for the last few days when reading these posts on such intertwined threads; thank-you Buddha for bringing up Scotsmen as this song is by Mike Scott from The Waterboys (and he was born in Edinburgh don’t you know!)
“Strange Boat”
We’re sailing in a strange boat, heading for a strange shore
We’re sailing in a strange boat, heading for a strange shore
We’re carrying the strangest cargo
that was ever hauled aboard
We’re sailing on a strange sea, blown by a strange wind
We’re sailing on a strange sea, blown by a strange wind
We’re carrying the strangest crew
that ever sinned
We’re riding in a strange car
We’re following a strange star
We’re climbing on the strangest ladder
that was ever here to climb
We’re living in a strange time, working for a strange goal
We’re living in a strange time, working for a strange goal
We’re turning flesh and body
into soul
“Ideas are not equally valid; they are assayed by reason. Unreasonable ideas are inferior to reasonable ideas.”
Mespo,
As usual thank you for these two sentences. A terse summation of the problem we’ve had in public discourse, as defined by the media, for many years now and one of the reasons for the decline in intelligent US discussions. The global warming issue is an obvious case in point. On one hand about 95% of the field scientists, on the other 5% of scientists working directly for energy companies. The MSM has debates treating both sides equally.
Mike A., Mespo & Vince
What a blessing this site is to have Mike’s ability to explain the law clearly; Mespo’s erudition and philosophical perspective and Vince’s logic and attention to detail.
Buddha,
But would you let a Scotsman marry your daughter?
FFLEO,
Exemplary of the intelligence of a true conservative and an old fogie like me.
GWLSM,
My nominee for rookie of the year. Always a fun read.
None of this meant to exclude the rest of our regular cast
of smart, committed people.
Thank you Jonathan, for making my days better and keeping me learning in my dotage.
Mike,
As long as he was a decent fellow who treated her right, I have no objection. I would however request a pass on having haggis served at the reception. The day would be traumatic enough without having the addition of playing a round of the home version of “Bizarre Foods With Andrew Zimmern”. Don’t get me wrong. I’ve been known to be an adventurous eater, but there is a time and a place. I’m thinking that ain’t it.
Buddha,
I also can be considered an adventurous eater and love ethnic foods of all available variety’s. Andrew Z., though makes me seem gastro-centric and if the choice was between eating haggis or starving, I’d have to think long and hard.
Mike S writes: Author: Mike Spindell
Comment:
“Ideas are not equally valid; they are assayed by reason. Unreasonable ideas are inferior to reasonable ideas.”
okay so I did not cut and paste the whole thing…but consider this: what would the world be without stupid ideas issued from the minds and mouths of stupid people? For one, the comedy business would suffer greatly. Tina Fey just happens to be a gifted mimic and just happens to bear a striking resemblance to Sarah Palin. This would mean nothing if Mrs. Palin were bright. But she, alas, is not. She is stupid. And so Tina Fey becomes brilliant, or more brilliant, even, her special gift for comedy and satire already have established her comedy bona fides.
I give thanks everyday for the Sarah Palins of this world and for the media that cements their stupidity in our eyes every day.
Mike S writes: I also can be considered an adventurous eater and love ethnic foods of all available variety’s. Andrew Z., though makes me seem gastro-centric and if the choice was between eating haggis or starving, I’d have to think long and hard.
sorry kids. Not me. Not ever. I was 20-ish before I ate my first taco and I was raised in southern california. I still can’t eat Thai or Vietnamese food and once some friends wanted me to go to this Ethiopian restaurant and I just could not do it. Grilled cheese is about as exotic as I get. I did have a fondness for sushi but don’t eat that anymore. My appetite for chinese food went out the window after a few trips to China and in India I stay vegetarian for obvious reasons. I age goat while living in Greece and that just about gagged me. If the choice is Haggis or nothing, then get me a plane ticket for Paris.
Mike, Buddha, GWLM,
I wouldn’t describe myself as adventurous, just Omnivorous.
Most organizations that call themselves a religion do not copyright their dogma or holy word nor charge a huge fee.