Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 24, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size


The Key to 2014




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Cheering for Ron Paul

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 20, 2007
Ron Paul
AP photo / Charles Dharapak

By Robert Scheer

What can you get for a trillion bucks?  Or make that $1.6 trillion, if you take the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as tallied by the majority staff of Congress’ Joint Economic Committee (JEC).  Or is it the $3.5-trillion figure cited by Ron Paul, whose concern about the true cost of this war for ordinary Americans shames the leading Democrats, who prattle on about needed domestic programs that will never find funding because of future war-related government debt?

Given that the overall defense budget is now double what it was when President Bush’s father presided over the end of the Cold War—even though we don’t have a militarily sophisticated enemy in sight—you have to wonder how this president has managed to exceed Cold War spending levels.  What has he gotten for the trillions wasted? Nothing, when it comes to capturing Osama bin Laden, bringing democracy to Iraq or preventing oil prices from tripling and enriching the ayatollahs of Iran while messing up the American economy.

That money could have paid for a lot of things we could have used here at home.  As Rep. Paul points out, for what the Iraq war costs, we could present each family of four a check for $46,000—which exceeds the $43,000 median household income in his Texas district.  He asks: “What about the impact of those costs on education, the very thing that so often helps to increase earnings?  Forty-six thousand dollars would cover 90 percent of the tuition costs to attend a four-year public university in Texas for both children in that family of four.  But, instead of sending kids to college, too often we’re sending them to Iraq, where the best news in a long time is they [the insurgents] aren’t killing our men and women as fast as they were last month.”

How damning that it takes a libertarian Republican to remind the leading Democratic candidates of the opportunity costs of a war that most Democrats in Congress voted for.  But they don’t need to take Paul’s word for it; last week, the majority staff of the Joint Economic Committee in Congress came up with similarly startling estimates of the long-term costs of this war.

The White House has quibbled over the methods employed by the JEC to calculate the real costs of our two foreign wars, because the Democrats in the majority dared to include in their calculations the long-term care of wounded soldiers and the interest to be paid on the debt financing the war.  Of course, you need to account for the additional debt run up by an administration that, instead of raising taxes to pay for the war, cut them by relying on the Chinese Communists and other foreigners who hold so much of our debt.  As concluded by the JEC report, compiled by the committee’s professional staff, “almost 10 percent of total federal government interest payments in 2008 will consist of payments on the Iraq debt accumulated so far.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
However, even if you take the hard figure of the $804 billion the administration demanded for the past five years, and ignore all the long-run costs like debt service, we’re still not talking chump change here.  For example, Bush has asked for an additional $196 billion in supplementary aid for his wars, which is $60 billion more than the total spent by the U.S. government last year on all of America’s infrastructure repairs, the National Institutes of Health, college tuition assistance and the SCHIP program to provide health insurance to kids who don’t have any.

On this matter of covering the uninsured, it should be pointed out to those who say we (alone among industrialized nations) can’t afford it that we could have covered all 47 million uninsured Americans over the past six years for what the Iraq war cost us.  How come that choice—war in Iraq or full medical coverage for all Americans—was never presented to the American people by the Democrats and Republicans who voted for this war and continue to finance it?

Those now celebrating the supposed success of the surge might note that, as the JEC report points out, “[m]aintaining post-surge troop levels in Iraq over the next ten years would result in costs of $4.5 trillion.”  Until the leading Democratic candidate faces up to the irreparable harm that will be done to needed social programs over the next decades by the red-ink spending she supported, I will be cheering for the libertarian Republican.  At least he won’t throw more money down some foreign rat hole.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: What Would Jesus Buy?

Next item: A Telling Rejection of Rudy



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Inherit The Wind, November 27, 2007 at 10:15 pm Link to this comment

EC:

I have only one valid vision of Zionism:

That there should be at least ONE place is this world that a Jew KNOWS for certain that his government will NEVER turn on him for being a Jew, that it will prosecute anyone that turns on him for being a Jew, that there is ONE SAFE PLACE in a world that has slaughtered us for thousands of years, solely for the “crime” of being Jews.

Even in my beloved nation, The United States of America, where it’s written into the Constitution and the VERY FIRST Amendment, I know I and my children are not safe. Even if it’s a little thing, like a fight over putting a creche on a public high school lawn (What? There aren’t enough church lawns and parochial school lawns), or putting up Christmas decorations on public streetlights with MY tax dollars, I know there is ALWAYS a push to FORCE me and mine become Christian.  And it has always been there, all my life, despite the fact that the First Amendment GUARANTEES me no government interference in how I choose to worship or not worship.

I think every non-Christian in America understands this: Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.  But in their heart of hearts, no Christian does.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 27, 2007 at 10:04 pm Link to this comment

November 27, 2007

Meet the Only Two Candidates Worse Than Bush and Cheney

Rudy or Hillary: Pick Your Poison

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

“In new books writers as disparate as Naomi Wolf and Pat Buchanan conclude that America as we know her is disappearing. Both writers hope, but are not confident, that enough Americans will catch on in time to find the leadership to pull America back from the brink.

If polls are reliable, a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with President Bush and Congress. However, Americans are far short of Wolf and Buchanan’s grasp of our peril.

Americans are unable to connect their dissatisfaction with the current political leadership with their choice of new leaders. All polls show that Hillary Clinton is far in the lead for the Democratic presidential nomination and Rudy Giuliani is far in the lead for the Republican nomination These are the only two candidates guaranteed to be worse than Bush/Cheney.

Both Hillary and Rudy are committed to the war. Both refuse to rule out expanding the war to Iran and beyond. Both are totally in the pocket of the Israel Lobby. Indeed, practically every Giuliani advisor is a member of the Lobby. Both defend the police state measures that “protect us from terrorism.” And neither gives a hoot for the US Constitution and the civil liberties it guarantees. The Republican Giuliani is likely to overturn the Second Amendment even quicker than the Democrat Hillary.

Both Hillary and Rudy are creatures of ambition, not of principle. Both are one up on Karl Marx. Marx said truth serves class interests. For Hillary and Rudy, truth is what serves their individual interests. They both wear black hats, and the horse they ride is called power.

Yet in November polls, Republicans prefer Giuliani by a margin of five or six to one over Ron Paul, the only principled Republican candidate and a person who without any doubt believes in the Constitution and would protect it.”


http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11272007.html

Report this

By LWM, November 27, 2007 at 9:44 pm Link to this comment

Tony… I’m not wearing the DLC hat. That’s LWM’s specialty.

The most amusing thing about all this is that some of you actually think you get to cast more than one vote in your primary, or that anyone in your state, or any other state is actually going to be swayed by your pleas on behalf of your chosen candidate. People generally make up their own minds when the time comes.

No one listened to Theodor Adorno, a Marxist who criticised this trend during the 60’s and caught hell for it, when he spoke out against the tendency for the left to rely on what he called “actionism,” which he defined as the belief that actions such as protests and strikes (or the browbeating of fellow travellers to vote your way) - could or would change the political structure by themselves without being supported by solid theory and an organized program or party. He was right, of course. Ironically the right listened to him and they did come to power.

If you want to have some real influence on who the Democratic nominee is going to be, try to be more like AIPAC.

Report this

By cyrena, November 27, 2007 at 9:38 pm Link to this comment

#116422 by Tony Wicher
Tony, Thanks for the tip. I’ve read some from Tony Karon before. I’ll add the site to my list.

Also, I do agree with this part of your other post
#116432 by Tony Wicher

•  “Herzlilya”?? Obama wasn’t even at the conference there. I suppose you think he’s being controlled by Israel too. I have good reason to believe that Obama is less influenced by the Israel lobby than any other candidate, including Kucinich. I think he will stand for civil rights, human rights and international law, and that includes the human rights of Palestinians.”...

I have in fact read (long ago) much work and writing from Barack Obama, and I do believe that in these respects, he is sincere. I don’t know if he is any ‘less’ influenced by the Israel Lobby than Kucinich is, but if we’re looking at some fundamental sorts of things, that too is probably, if only because he simply hasn’t been around as long.

My very greatest fear for Barak Obama, (besides the obvious that you’ve already mentioned) was that once he joined the ugliness of political fray, he could/would become corrupted by the process. It almost seemed inevitable in terms of political survival.

And so I’ve continued to watch, and read, and listen. And, it didn’t take long before he found himself pushed into some of those very and tricky positions, on which his detractors have attempted to capitalize. Many such incidents have come about as a result of the pre-planned and outright ‘tricky’ questions of the canned debates. I was particularly concerned when he got caught in the trap of having to commit to WHEN (by which term) any of them would end the Iraq atrocity. He got caught in that in a manner of a semantic/linguistic technicality, because of course he doesn’t expect it to take another 8 or more years to end our involvement there. And, he’s said as much, time and time again. He has also pointed to (and previous to that debate) the continuing presence of our military in KOREA. (how long now…50 years at least?) In other words, don’t we need to look at a WHOLE, instead of a piece that happens to be within immediate sight?
Then there has been the constant reference to his wife’s alleged connection with Wal-Mart. Maybe she was, and maybe she wasn’t. I’m not sure how that connects to anything at this point. Here again, neither Barack or Michelle Obama has come from the elite dynasty that has ruled America or it’s Corporate partners for the past 25 years or more. They aren’t that old, and I can’t think of ANY African-Americans who have had those connections. (If anyone else can, please feel free to point this out to me…I cannot think of any).

Needless to say, this is NOT to slam or otherwise dismiss the principles for which Dennis Kucinich has bravely put forth, or stood by. I very much like him, as I did back in the run-up to the 2004 election, (if we wanna call it that). However, we don’t need to slime either one of these candidates, on behalf of the other, and that’s what I’m seeing here. It troubles me.

I also noted and was impressed by the speech that Obama delivered in Iowa. I did NOT find that it rang hollow, in any form or fashion. I agreed with the author of the accompanying commentary, that it did take him a while to ‘warm up’ so to speak. But I wish that more people would have another look at that video, because he addressed many of these issues at the time.

Report this

By cyrena, November 27, 2007 at 9:33 pm Link to this comment

•  #116390 by Non Credo on 11/27 at 5:04 pm
re: #116389 by antispin on 11/27 at 4:59 pm:
Wow! Kucinich/Paul would be the antiwar dream ticket!

Non Credo,
On this, I think you and Auntie Spin are trying to give me a heart attack. NO TICKET that includes Ron Paul on ANYTHING, (unless it’s a one-way ticket to hell) is gonna work for us, unless you’re talking about a nightmare type dream. I’ve seen too many people compare Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in ideology and it’s a FALSE comparison. They have one thing, and one thing only in common, and that has been their professed commitment to ending the war in Iraq. That is IT!!! Aside from that, they are opposite sides of DIFFERENT coins. Yes!! They are.
Here is only one very stark, (and admittedly extreme) example:

Dennis Kucinich stated in an earlier debate this year, (and this was another trick question) that he FAVORED reparations for African-American. Now, as a person of color myself, one would imagine that would be fine with me. And, it would, except for the fact that at this point in time, three or four hundred years down the road, there is absolutely NO practicality to that. (Imagine THOSE logistics…what, sign up and they’ll send us a check to cover those 40 acres and a new SUV?)  I love you Dennis, but THAT ain’t about to happen!

Obama’s response was that he believed in ‘reparations’ in the form of SUPERIOR EDUCATION – for ALL!! He wanted JOBS and economic opportunities for independence returned to us – ALL. Reparations in the form of retuning our depressed communities to those of vibrancy and enhancement for all. Now THIS much, is in fact do-able.

Ron Paul of course was not included in that debate, (it was a debate between the democratic candidates) and of course this is not a question that would ever be posed or considered in a debate among repugs or any of their ilk.

But, this is my suggestion on what RP would have to offer on any ‘reparations’ for African-Americans:

400,000 acres at the bottom of our chosen ocean, and maybe one gigantic ship to use to toss all of us overboard…weights attached. He might even provide the necessary firearms for us to kill each other off - en masse- before the great toss.

So please, let us stop comparing any likenesses of Ron Paul with Dennis Kucinich. It’s an overwhelming insult to Kucinich, and allows false impressions of a character that Paul does not have, never had, and never will have. Additionally, they are NOT the only ones who can or will effectively stop the wars on the rest of the world, including the wars against US, right here at home. (RP isn’t the least bit concerned about the wars against us anyway – when he’s finished dumping the 12% of the African-American population in the ocean of our choice, the rest of you will be up next – probably make you use the same ‘hand me down’ ship).

So…scratch and burn any ticket with a ron paul image and/or likeness, and stop trying to give me a heart attack. You all need me more than you may know. wink

Report this

By LWM, November 27, 2007 at 9:31 pm Link to this comment

Ernest, just so there is no misunderstanding between us, Bo Gritz is a vet from Vietnam and he is a pudgy prevaricator, opportunist and a coward. I wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire. Being a veteran of combat gives no one special privileges and those who are deserving of them are the least likely to flaunt it or demand it.

Report this

By LWM, November 27, 2007 at 9:26 pm Link to this comment

Ernest Canning… Yeah, I don’t “know” but I think I indeed have you pegged, LWM.  If you were a fellow vet, you would have responded by telling me when and where you served, unit and year.  If you’ve been in combat, speak up.  Otherwise, shut your gutless pie hole.

Ernest reminds me of Bo Gritz.

Do all your “war stories” start with, “There I was…”?

http://www.miafacts.org/Gritz_mission.htm

We are always on the look out for your kind.

http://www.miafacts.org/bopics.htm

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 27, 2007 at 9:23 pm Link to this comment

Re #116436 by Non Credo on 11/27 at 7:37 pm
(654 comments total)

From what I can tell, it was Edwards that went to the conference and made a strong anti-Iran speech. According to one article, Obama did make some strong anti-Iran statements after that conference. I haven’t found the text of his comments yet. I am hopeful that Obama is evolving away from unconditional support for Israel in favor of a neutral position and support for international law in his Middle East position.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 27, 2007 at 8:40 pm Link to this comment

Instead of a DLC hat, I’m wearing an “Audacity of Hope” hat. EC, I can’t prove anything at this stage, but I can only say that my hope that Obama will be a good president is greater than my hope that Kucinich will get the Democratic nomination. I have the “audacity to hope” that Kucinich and the ideas, principles and programs of those now supporting Kucinich such as you and me will have a big place in an Obama administration.

NC, Here are three reasons why I think Obama is NOT unduly influenced by the Israel lobby: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 27, 2007 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment

Wow Tony Wicher, that’s a heavy portentous possibility that maybe ought not to have been said?  To lighten up a bit in response to EC’s news at #116414, looks like the Bush Bunch may have just fallen over the precipice.  RP is not far behind.  Orr’s comment is just plain asinine and needs to be made fun of in order to defuse.  So let us help them out…here’s a restatement:  the pariahs of keeping people-in-the-pink plans that cover Trojans are fellow travelers on the well-bred vessel of doom.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 27, 2007 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

#116402 by Non Credo on 11/27 at 5:37 pm
(652 comments total)

Obama is not the person to vote for on principle if you’re an antiwar progressive (or left-libertarian). Reason? One word: Herzliya.

Also, he has a habit of making hollow speeches, vaguely favoring Good Things, and vaguely contrasting them with Bad Things. What’s to like about this?

But let’s, for a moment, put on the DLC/DNC hat, the one that’s supposed to make us think “strategically” about how to make sure the least offensive “electable” candidate wins. Well, I don’t really want to go there. But even from that point of view — is it really so clear that America has any chance of electing a black guy whose name sounds like a combination of an Israeli prime minister and a Saudi terrorist?
——————————————————————————
Yes, the United States is ready for Obama, but I suspect that when various powers that be begin to see that Obama is for real, not hollow speeches, and the people are getting behind him, assassination is a likely possibility.

I’m not wearing the DLC hat. That’s LWM’s specialty.

“Herzlilya”?? Obama wasn’t even at the conference there. I suppose you think he’s being controlled by Israel too. I have good reason to believe that Obama is less influenced by the Israel lobby than any other candidate, including Kucinich. I think he will stand for civil rights, human rights and international law, and that includes the human rights of Palestinians.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 27, 2007 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

#116385 by cyrena on 11/27 at 4:42 pm

Cyrena,

My very favorite anti-Zionist web site is “The Rootless Cosmopolitan” http://tonykaron.com/
Tony Karon is a Jewish South African journalist and a senior editor of Time.com who maintains the site at his own expense. I think he has it exactly right.

Tony

Report this

By cann4ing, November 27, 2007 at 7:20 pm Link to this comment

I’m not certain where Ron Paul stands on the issue, but this just in from NARAL with respect to the current regime:  “Thought George Bush’s nominees couldn’t get any worse?  Well, here’s a new one for the record books.  Susan Orr, Bush’s nominee to oversee more than $300 million in family-planning grants…has called proponents of health-care plans that cover contraceptives “collaborators with the culture of death.”

Report this

By cann4ing, November 27, 2007 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment

Tony, I was really hoping that after your honest concession that Kucinich was superior on policy, it would be you who would abandon the Obama camp.  I have never voted on the basis of endorsements, and this idea that we must blindly follow what we are told by questionable corporate media-sponsored polls is not a valid basis for voting in a primary election either.  As I noted in an earlier post, it always reminds me of the words some wise guy left on a men’s room wall when I attended UCLA back in the early seventies.  It read, “Eat sh-t!  Ten billion flies can’t all be wrong.”

Report this

By antispin, November 27, 2007 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment

#116387 by Non Credo on 11/27 at 4:53 pm
(646 comments total)

#116383 by Tony Wicher on 11/27 at 4:37 pm:

Tony, I don’t think Barak Obama has repudiated his anti-Iran rant at the January Herzliya conference. Until he does, true antiwar progressives can hardly consider voting for him.
===========================

I concur with NC.

BTW, Kucinich is considering Ron Paul as a running mate:  http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/27/bipartisan-bedfellows/

It’s not my McKinney/Kucinich dream ticket, but it’d do!

Report this

By cyrena, November 27, 2007 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

#116289 by Tony Wicher

•  They particularly attack progessive Jews who critize Israel. A recent symposium of CAMERA devoted itself to attacking Rabbi Michael Lerner, one of the leading progressive Jews in the country and the head of an organization of which I am a member, the Network of Spiritual Progressives (NSP). http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?p=277.

Tony,

Thanks for these links and the info. I’m particularly interested to know which (exactly) of these groups are attacking progressive Jews who criticize Israel. In addition to Rabbi Lerner, (and apparently many others) there are groups attacking progressive Jews in academia, who do the same. (a list of the 100 ‘most dangerous professors’ has some prominent Jews on it…I haven’t checked it recently, but I’m about to). Those that I know of course are hardly ‘dangerous’. (brilliant, but not dangerous) They just criticize Israel.

Anyway, that said, I’m trying to do a paper on this, just to sort out who’s who in this mess, and what they’re about, and who’s doing what to whom. I’d never even heard of CAMERA, so I’ll start with that. But, there are so many others. I’m getting really confused. For instance, we’re under attack by the Ron Paul gang for what appear to be similar reasons and they are using similar tactics. BUT, I don’t believe they’re connected, because Ron Paul’s group is in fact anti-Semitic at the roots of his ideology, and the David Horowitz group (I don’t even know if they have a name) are obviously Zionist Jews. Geeze…maybe I need to make an organizational chart.

Anyway, anything you have that might give me some direction would be much appreciated. The muzzle watch link is very helpful.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 27, 2007 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment

Hey, everybody! I just saw Katrina Vandenheuval endorse Obama on Hardball. (The Nation as a whole will announce its endorsement in two weeks, she said.) Her reasons sounded so much like the ones I have been giving it’s almost like she was reading this thread. Liberals and progressives are flocking to the Obama banner! Come on in from the cold, all you progressives, all you Kucinich supporters! This is our chance!

Report this

By cann4ing, November 27, 2007 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment

Non credo, no offense, but my question was directed at ITW because Tony and I want to know how “he” defines himself.  I know how I define Zionism—in the same manner that scholars like Noam Chomsky & Norm Finkelstein define Zionism, but I think it would be useful, from the standpoint of this discourse, if we can see where ITW is coming from so as to see where are principle disagreements lie.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 27, 2007 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment

Noam Chomsky stated “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all”.

Lies, bitter feuds, hate, despises, you guys sound like my family. I love you all.

ITW, I’m sorry to hear you got beat up as a little kid but if you were as obnoxious to others as you are here, I can see why.

Several members of my family were killed in Norway by the Nazi’s as insurgents and others were killed in England by Buzz bombs, so next time you start calling people bigoted nazi’s look first in the mirror.

Ariel Sharon is a war criminal and his word cannot be trusted as in the motto…By way of deception thou shalt do war. 

I typically follow the democratic party and am a fan of Kucinich, if he gets the Democratic nomination I will vote for him, however, my plan “B’ is to vote Ron Paul through the primaries as a Republican.  I would much rather have him as the Republican nominee than any of the others, his views reflect Kucinichs’ more than most democrats.  Those two debating for President would reel members of congress and senate, most engulfed by their own campaigns and angry constituants.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 27, 2007 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment

non credo, while all of us, including myself, have succumbed to the temptation to respond in kind, the better course is to tone down the rhetoric and attempt where possible to open the line of dialogue.  With some posters, like the psychopathic “Lefty” that is not possible.  That is why I have deliberately ignored him in the hope he will eventually just go away, while I have continued to seek a discourse of sorts with ITW over a span of many months.

By the way, ITW, I believe Tony posed a perfectly valid question which you failed to answer.  Do you consider yourself a Zionist?  If not, how do you distinguish your positions from those of the sometimes rapid Zionist posters like lilmamzer and Lefty?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 27, 2007 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

I have opposed the Iraqi war from the beginning. I heeded Jimmy Carter’s warning that it was a dreadful mistake (of course Carter was right), bad for Iraq, bad for the US, bad for Israel, bad for the world.

When even Ariel Sharon, a near Likudnik, warned Bush against the war, you have to wonder where characters like M&W;, NC, et al come up with this nonsense that all Israel and most Jews wanted us to go to war with Iraq.

If the fools in AIPAC pushed for this war, they did Israel a serious dis-service.

And all the psycho-babble from NC won’t change that, nor my mind.

NC, this “feud” is of your making. You post ridiculous, hateful, anti-semitic garbage and then get offended and whine when it’s rightfully challenged.

YOU began it on this thread when you made claims you KNEW were false that LWM and I were the same poster. I hadn’t even posted here once until then, and ONLY to call you on that lie.

But you are not man enough to back down when you are wrong—just like when I didn’t respond to you in the middle of the night, you claimed I had “run away”.

You still haven’t apologized for THAT stupid, insulting lie.

This thread, any feud is all on YOUR head, NC, not mine. I’m simply responding to your continuing attacks.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 27, 2007 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo on 11/27 at 11:33 am
(638 comments total)

ITW writes:

“… M&W;are biased and ignore refuting evidence of their thesis.  They are “reductionist” and therefore lose any claim to being scholars.”

That’s garbage and you know it, ITW.

*******************

No, what’s garbage is M&W;‘s book, but you don’t want to admit it because they say what you want to hear.

They are reductionists.  Reductionists produce garbage that looks like serious work.

Very few nations engage in fundamental illogic when it comes to their National Security. Even nuts like Saddam Hussein and Qaddaffi don’t. It’s very, very, VERY rare for a nation to do it—you need a jackass like George W. Bush at the helm, and it is ALWAYS disasterous for that nation. Since Israel has ALWAYS been pragmatic, them wanting the Iraq War (Even though Sharon WARNED Bush it was a bad idea) is just a fantasy.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 27, 2007 at 2:34 pm Link to this comment

Re #116334 by Non Credo on 11/27 at 1:08 pm
(638 comments total)

“The inception of my bitter feud with ITW concerns my insistence that the Iraq war was undertaken, broadly speaking, for Israel. He can stand criticism of Israel, but only within certain safe bounds.

The Israel lobby is protected, oddly, by people like ITW who actually do not support the Israeli far right, but who protect the lobby from scrutiny by screaming (as they sincerely believe, I think) that anyone who even suggests that the lobby is working against America’s interests is an anti-Semite. I really think ITW cannot allow himself to see what is going on. I do not think he is a secret Likudnik (although he refuses to see that Zionism inherently conflicts with his sincere liberalism).”
—————————————————————————-
How about it, ITW? I have never heard you call yourself a Zionist, and unlike Lefty and Lee, you don’t really sound like one to my ear. I have heard you say many things critical of the Israeli government, and I presume you are against activities on the part of groups such as the ADL or CAMERA which are supposed to be opposing anti-Semitism, but under cover of this have become advocates for the government of Israel instead. I see you as a genuine opponent of anti-Semitism doing what the ADL, etc. are supposed to be doing.   

As to the Iraq war, it is a war of imperial conquest. It was not undertaken for the benefit of Israel, and neither will be any coming attack on Iran. However, the Israel Lobby was and is certainly very helpful in selling this war to the American people, and that is why I have spent so much time in the past year opposing it.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 27, 2007 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment

It is interesting that Ernest sets up a model for you Non Credo at 116314 and in your response to Robert at 116317 you show that you could understand the good advise.  In your question about Israel’s consciousness about the $10 billion you exhibit a question strategy employed for the purpose of leaving aside emotional pre-occupation. So you have the mental equipment to dialogue, particularly with respect to ITW, it’s just that perhaps you don’t know it.  Hard to tell if ITW has similar furniture.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 27, 2007 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

The problem, as I see it NC, is racism, be it anti-Semitic racism with its devastating consequences in the mid-20th Century or Zionism with its devastating consequences in late 20th and early 21st Century.

The difference between myself and ITW is that where ITW is to concede the excesses the Israeli right, I, like Prof. Chomsky see these excesses as the consequence of the racist nature of Zionism.

Dialogue is a fundamental prerequisite to addressing issues of this nature.  Nothing is accomplished when you sound off about “jews” in general other than to get the hackles up on the part of individuals like ITW who would otherwise attempt to engage in a conversation rather than name calling.  As a result, your competing posts have one another talking past each other.  I would submit that it would do wonders for the scope of discourse if you would leave aside your emotional pre-occupation with all things Jewish, and if you focus on the true source of the conflict, which is Zionism—irrespective of whether we deal with Christian Zionists of the hard-right, or Jewish Zionists.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, November 27, 2007 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

The Complete Unexpurgated AIPAC Tape


(Following is a transcript of the Oct. 22, 1992 conversation with President David Steiner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) recorded without his knowledge by New York businessman Haim (Harry) Katz. Its existence was first revealed to the Washington Times and its release triggered Steiner’s resignation.)


David Steiner: Haim.

Harry Katz: Hello, how are you?

DS: Where are you located?

HK: I’m located in Queens, New York.

DS: Queens.. .Far Rockaway?

DS: I’II tell you, I have friends on the Clinton campaign, close associates. Gore is very committed to us.

HK: Right. Clinton if he, have you spoken to him?

DS: I’ve known Bill for seven, eight years from the National Governors Association. I know him on a personal basis. I have friends. One of my friends is Hillary Clinton’s scheduler, one of my officer’s daughters works there. We gave two employees from AIPAC leave of absences to work on the campaign. I mean, we have a dozen people in that campaign, in the headquarters.

HK: You mean in Little Rock?

DS: In Little Rock, and they’re all going to get big jobs. We have friends. I also work with a think tank, the Washington Institute. I have Michael Mandelbaum and Martin Indyk being foreign policy advisers. Steve Speigel—we’ve got friends—this is my business.

HK: I understand, David.

DS: It’s very complicated and the more you get into it, you’ll love it. You sound like a smart guy.

HK: I’m a smart guy, but I have a, maybe because I’m more orthodox than you are, I’ve had bad experiences with Gentiles. Let me ask you, you know what “tachlis” means?

DS: Yeah, sure.

HK: From a practical point of view, if Clinton wins the presidency, and I’m sure he will, I hope so at least, what will be the benefits to Israel better than Bush? From a very practical point . . . I mean, you just told me that Bush gave you everything you wanted. . .

DS: Only, not everything, at the end, when we didn’t want the F-15s, that’s a terrible thing.

HK: Selling the F-15s? If Clinton is elected. . .

DS: Let me tell you the problem with the $10 billion in loan guarantees, right? We only have the first year. We have authorization from Congress, but it’s at the discretion of the president every year thereafter, so if Bush is there, he could say, you know, use it as a club, you know. ‘If you don’t give up Syria, I won’t give you the money. If you don’t give up the Golan Heights.’ It’s at the discretion of the president. And that’s why we need a friendly president and we have Bill Clinton’s ear. I talked to Bill Clinton.

HK: And Bill Clinton has made a commitment that if he’s elected . . . ?

DS: He’s going to be very good for us.

HK: And he’ll go ahead with the loan guarantees?
———


“DS: Why did he do it, you know, why did he do it? Last year I was a bum. This year I said look Jim, we’re going to fight on the F-l5s. Israel doesn’t want to fight, I said, but some people on it are going to come up on the floor of the Senate and the House and they’re going to fight. If you’ll do this, I think I can hold them back. But you’ve got to do it right away. They didn’t want to fight. I said, “You don’t want a fight before the election. It’s going to hurt Bush. We don’t want a fight before the election. We don’t want to fight at all. Why can’t we work something out?” So we cut a deal. You can’t repeat this.”
================


For the rest of AIPAC’s control…click on the link for the complete tape:

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1292/9212013.html

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 27, 2007 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment

But you refuse to concede what is obvious and most important of all: the Iraq war would not have happened without the Israel lobby’s pushing for it, and if the Israel lobby had opposed it, it could not have happened.

Documentation? See Mearsheimer and Walt.

Furthermore, you refuse to see that even more obviously, Israel’s supporters are at the forefront of the campaign for a US bombing of Iran (a massive bombing, of many, many, many sites, that will certainly kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians and become all-out war).

Now, children, let us ask ourselves: why is ITW willing to criticize Israel sometimes, yet he refuses to consider, with hysterical accusations of Nazism, any attempt to show that the blame for these wars goes primarily to Israel and its supporters?

****************

Because it’s crapola. M&W;are biased and ignore refuting evidence of their thesis.  They are “reductionist” and therefore lose any claim to being scholars.

Now that we’ve settled that, Non-Credible’s own thesis, is, well, non-credible, unsupported and makes NO SENSE!  Firing up a HUGE conflict in their backyard makes NO sense for Israeli National Security.  Barak may not be too bright but he’s not as dumb as Bush.

BTW, don’t you REALIZE that Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq the moment the election was decided, even before he was inaugurated? Of course, in your feverish brain, you can’t give Bush and his cohort credit even for such an imbecilic scheme, but HAVE to credit it to the “evil Zionists”.

The only people blaming Israel for the Iraq war are anti-semites like you and Muslim fundamentalists.

If you want to be intellectually consistent, you’d better start hating Cuban-Americans and Mexican-Americans as well for their influence on US foreign policy.  We have had a mis-guided policy on Cuba for 45 years due to the fear of parties of losing Floriduh to other side because of the Anti-Castro types who NEVER realized that the PROPER invasion of Cuba was with Coca-Cola, Nike shoes, PCs, Corvettes and pick-up trucks, rather than bullets.

But I don’t expect that.  Jews are just too convenient for you to hate.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 27, 2007 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

Re #116198 by LWM on 11/27 at 4:51 am

“Noam Chomsky, political activist and professor of linguistics at MIT, writes that “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.”
—————————————————————————-
LWM,

I am in complete agreement with Chomsky on this as most other issues. How you can be “left-wing” and not understand that the fundamental problem is not Jews or the Israel lobby but the untrammeled power of capital - of banks, insurance companies, drug companies, oil companies, defense contractors etc. is beyond me.
——————————————————————————
“ITW is representative of most American Jews, and a fair portion of Jews in Israel and elsewhere. Non Credible is probably just an ANSWER Maoist moron. The left does have it’s whackos and conspiracy theorists. It’s not surprising, what with 9/11. It hasn’t been this bad since JFK was assassinated. Rather than attacking people on blog threads, Non Credible should be out vandalizing FLAME, CAMERA and JINSA offices. He probably has no idea who or what they are, clueless moron that he is.”
——————————————————————————
On the other hand, the Israel Lobby is real and does work together with imperialist and militarist forces in this country which use Israel as a pretext for hegemonic policies in the Middle East and to silence critics of those policies in this country with charges of “anti-Semitism”. They particularly attack progessive Jews who critize Israel. A recent symposium of CAMERA devoted itself to attacking Rabbi Michael Lerner, one of the leading progressive Jews in the country and the head of an organization of which I am a member, the Network of Spiritual Progressives (NSP). http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?p=277.

My personal opinion is that Zionism is essentially a reactionary, colonialist 19th century ideology and an aberration which is morally unsustainable in the 21st century. It is fundamentally undemocratic. It is a dying ideology; young Jews are for the most part not adopting it, and Israel in its current form will not exist in 20 years. No two-state solution will ever work; transformation of the “Jewish state” into a single democratic state of all its citizens is the only answer that makes sense to me.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 27, 2007 at 11:34 am Link to this comment

NC—No problem with your current take, but I do have a problem with your enmity towards all things Jewish.  I hope you realize that the man I quoted, Noam Chomsky, is Jewish.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 27, 2007 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

Yeah, I don’t “know” but I think I indeed have you pegged, LWM.  If you were a fellow vet, you would have responded by telling me when and where you served, unit and year.  If you’ve been in combat, speak up.  Otherwise, shut your gutless pie hole.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 27, 2007 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

This from Noam Chomsky:

“We’re now approaching George Bush’s historic Annapolis conference…., so we can anticipate a flood of deceit and distortions to set the proper framework….Bostonians could read in the Boston Globe a few days ago that at the Taba Conference in January 2001…‘Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak accepted the ideas floated by President Bill Clinton that would have produced a Palestinian state in 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of Gaza,’ but these forthcoming gestures failed.  The evil Palestinians refused refused Israel’s generous offer….

“Well, there’s one fragment of truth in this conventional fabrication:  there was a conference at Taba.  And, in fact, it did come close to a possible settlement, but the rest is pure invention.  In particular, the conference was terminated abruptly by Prime Minister Barak.  The truth is completely unacceptable, so the facts are either suppressed…or, as in this case, just inverted.”

Chomsky notes that in 1988 “the Palestinian National Council formally accepted a two-state settlement” and that the Israeli government of Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Shamir “responded by issuing a formal declaration that there can be no additional Palestinian state between Jordan and Palestine—‘additional’ because for Shimon Peres and his Labor coalition, Jordan already was a Palestinian State….The Bush Baker Plan endorsed Israel’s position without qualification….Again, the truth is inconvenient, so virtually none of this was reported….”

And now, with Annapolis approaching, “Israel has just confiscated more Arab land to build a bypass road…‘in order to push Palestinian traffic between Bethlehem and Ramallah deep into the desert and effectively bar Palestinians from the central part of the West Bank…”

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/27/1547221

Report this

By LWM, November 27, 2007 at 11:04 am Link to this comment

American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been killed and maimed in far greater numbers and at a much faster rate after dubya staged his victory photo op on the deck of that aircraft carrier than before.

So that’s your metric, Ernest? Bodycounts? How Vietnamesque of you… You don’t know me or anything about me. Where I’ve been or what I’ve done. One thing’s for sure, I’m too old for that now. If you can’t use language with clarity and precision, perhaps you should just keep quiet.

That’s good advice for both you and Non Credible. And please leave Orwell out of it. You know next to nothing about him.

Low Intensity Conflict isn’t an Orwellian term, it’s quite the opposite.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 27, 2007 at 10:37 am Link to this comment

Only a keyboard punching geek like LWM who has never been in harm’s way would come forth with the Orwellian “low intensity conflict” as a replacement for “war of aggression.”  During WW II, for the French resistance or those German soldiers they killed, the “war” did not end with the Nazi occupation of France.  American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been killed and maimed in far greater numbers and at a much faster rate after dubya staged his victory photo op on the deck of that aircraft carrier than before.

If you really believed half of the bleep you have been peddling at this site, LWM, get your sorry bleep into the Marine corps or the National Guard.  As someone who served in another imperial conquest—Vietnam—I can personally assure you that once you experience the terror of bullets whizzing past your head, once you hear the thump of mortar shells exploding nearby and see the agony on your best friend’s face as his entrails seep out, then, perhaps then, even “you” will know that we are in a war.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 27, 2007 at 9:07 am Link to this comment

Non Credo on 11/27 at 4:58 am
(625 comments total)

#116193 by LWM on 11/27 at 4:19 am:

No, my comparison is actually very good.

It’s ITW who should be ashamed of itself for trivializing the very real sufferings of gay people and indeed anyone else who’s not the Chosen victim.

But of course, “liberal” Jewish orthodoxy forbids any comparison of Jewish suffering with anyone else’s, and so it always works out, when trying to reason with people like you and ITW, that reasoning by analogy - an indispensable if always flawed tool of political and moral argument - cannot be applied to anything to do with Israel, the Holocaust, Hitler, etc. That’s what I mean by the separate Israeli/Jewish morality that is a license for so many ills.
***********

Just don’t get it, do you? You cannot address the issues I raised so instead you try to change the subject.  When I bring you BACK to the subject, you whine that I don’t care about the problems of these other people.

You might as well try to talk about the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, and then when I bring it back whine that I don’t care about the environment.

All you are doing is a debating tactic to change the subject.

Then you grease it up with false claims that I think that Jews are the Chosen (which I have NEVER said, not once, not ever) and that I think the problems of Jews are more important than that problems of Gay people or Palestinians. 

That’s about as stupid and mean as saying that when I take care of MY child it “proves” I don’t care about children starving in Darfur.

It’s a Re-thuglican trick:  Try to “frame” the argument so the deck is stacked in your favor.

I know all these simple tricks and see right through them.

Now I would like an apology from you, NC, “Mr. Moral High Ground”, for accusing me of “running away” when all I did was leave off posting to do what normal people do at night: sleep.  I’ll bet Hell will freeze over first, though.

Report this

By LWM, November 27, 2007 at 8:15 am Link to this comment

the war is the main issue

What war? There is no war. There is an occupation and an insurgency, a nationalist resistance to that occupation. There is the threat of terrorism and there are low intensity conflicts going on all over the globe, as usual, and this was an expected result of the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the bipolar power relationship between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Neocons tried to make it a unipolar world with America as the dominant superpower, but that didn’t quite succeed and the multipolar world with multipolar power relationships will guarantee that LICs continue unabated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_intensity_conflict

When the Soviet Union fell, some of us were farsighted enough to say, “One down, one to go.”

Anyway, there is no “war”. Vietnam was a war. This is not a war, it’s an occupation, insurgency and counter-insurgency and no matter who you elect, some American troops will be remaining in Iraq for some time. Bush has made sure of that. You don’t think they went to all this trouble just to pull up stakes and leave, do you? Na Ga Happen. The good news is that American forces in Iraq will be greatly reduced soon. From the current 160,000 or more down to 20,000 to 30,000.


White House Releases “Principles” for Permanent Iraqi Presence

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004772.php

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 27, 2007 at 7:50 am Link to this comment

Like it was said, the war is the main issue, but the others issues make Paul look quite cold on womens rights and global warming.  Sorry Paul you are out in my book, back to Gravel and Kucinich for me.

Not so bad, he was my last choice of the three anti war folks anyway.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 27, 2007 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

If there are more like you in Texas Cyrena, I will breathe easier than I have in a couple of years.  I thought they were all provincial red-necks.  Least that is all I’ve seen whereabouts I live, a recent reluctant resident.  Your description is perfect.  But you had to bring up that other swear word, WalMart.  That is one affiliation I find negative in the Clinton candidacy.  I absolutely hate WalMart.  I even have an I hate WalMart icon on my desktop so I can say it every day as a mantra.  This is probably not the forum to raise that shit issue, but I feel better saying it.

Oh my gawd, global warming and Ron apPaulling. Good grief Bobadi! this is exactly what I exclaimed when you brought that up.  You just had to bring that up, didn’t you and at least six days ago.  I had read about his antipathetic global warming views but the pissing contest here was hot and heavy here about the Jews and Paul’s anti-women’s rights that I just didn’t want to start another broiling battle until the current ones have petered out (pun intended).  I admit I was finding it entertaining and learning at the same time, so I let your comment of days ago go by.  It was destined to come out.  This is as good a time as any.  Thanks, we needed that other sobering nasty piece of work.  And you are right, let the dawgs chew on that one. 

But it might be this fracas is ostensibly pointless as Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican nominee.  There are in reality just a few supplicants here in this forum.  And just as many of us anti-Paulists. 

The dick-heads ought to be happy that a Nevada brothel owner endorses the “devout Christian,” Ron Paul.  There is an hysterical video on AOL News.  I personally don’t care about the brothels, guess they have to take a stand on politicians too, but I do care about hypocrites trying to run my government.

Report this

By LWM, November 27, 2007 at 6:16 am Link to this comment

Even better and more current, how about the Free State Projects of the cretinous social conservatives, Christian Dominionists, winger libertarians and Pauliacs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project

Now that’s an apt comparison, and they are your pals, right?

Move into my state, I’d shoot them, too.

Report this

By LWM, November 27, 2007 at 6:12 am Link to this comment

#116204 by Non Credo on 11/27 at 4:58 am


No, my comparison is actually very good.

No, Sparky. It ain’t. A proper analogy would be Manifest Destiny, the Monroe Doctrine, Andrew Jackson, or even Colonialism in general.

Report this

By LWM, November 27, 2007 at 6:07 am Link to this comment

Cyrena… Don’t even know how I let myself get tangled up in this horrible nonsense of Ron Paul, because I honestly never thought that the asshole would ever get this sort of attention or support. BUT, I was sent spinning late last week, when I discovered his supporters had descended on my small community… a place we wouldn’t have expected to come under such attack, but at the same time…we’d also been forewarned.

This is the real danger of proto-fascist, right wing populism. It has a long history in the United States. You can read about it here:

http://radicalreference.info/node/460

That’s just library research from actual books.

It’s not something one can take lightly, unfortunately. It’s fringe now, but without constant attention and exposure… Nazism started with 20 guys in a beer hall, after all.

Report this

By cyrena, November 27, 2007 at 5:55 am Link to this comment

#116131 by Bobadi

•  The only problem with this is that you are all arguing in a burning house about to collapse. ….I have felt before; as if I were chained to a mass of fools running themselves over a cliff, dragging me with them when we “ugly Americans” and our cheerleading media allowed Bush and his endless ruin.
Bobadi,
I swear I really do hear you on this. Oh yes, I definitely do. I’ve been feeling this EXACT same way for 7 years. It’s absolutely horrifying, because it’s like we’re watching it happening, and can’t figure out if everybody else is BLIND or what!!

And, you’re right about the bickering about with things that don’t matter a wit, in the long run. Don’t even know how I let myself get tangled up in this horrible nonsense of Ron Paul, because I honestly never thought that the asshole would ever get this sort of attention or support. BUT, I was sent spinning late last week, when I discovered his supporters had descended on my small community… a place we wouldn’t have expected to come under such attack, but at the same time…we’d also been forewarned.

BUT…here is another shocker that you’ve just hit me with. (I admitted in an earlier post, that I’ve paid very little attention to anything he has actually said recently himself, because I already knew he was bad news from long ago.)

•  Now I feel the exact same thing when this thread ignores the one issue that should simply end the discussion of Ron Paul; his insane stance on Global Warming. He insists it is only a conspiracy. Nothing at all to worry about, and therefore has no ambition to affect it, other then to enlarge it dramatically by removing ecology controls with his free market economy.

I had NO IDEA that I needed to add this to his crimes. I was never even aware that he’d taken ANY stance on Global Warming, but that would certainly explain all of the trash and other pollution that his team left scattered all around here. The dirty bastards.

So, he thinks just like all the rest of these crazies. (george bush and millions of others like him…what can I say. I lived in Texas for a long time. This is the mentality there.) Global warming is just a liberal conspiracy, so just jump in that 2-story stretch pickup truck, and tear ass across the counties at 140 mph, shooting whatever you can as you go, and throwing it on the bar-b-que somewhere later on down the road at billy bobs. The little ladies are in their caddies at bingo, and the real men are digging oil at the rigs, and the soccer moms are at wal-mart, buying everything in sight. The sprinklers go 24/7 at least from May through October, to keep the lawns green. Nobody’s worried about nothin’ much more than next Sunday’s sermon, and the homecoming games. (whatever season).

As long as there’s enough hot biscuits and gravy with plenty of grits and bacon, and the bookstore doesn’t run out of bibles, everybody’s real happy. That global warming stuff is just something the rest of us are trying to ‘fool them’ about.

The only hope might be for Oprah to tell them that it’s real. Don’t hold your breath on that. Last time I was forced to see/hear snippets of her, it was something to do with Oprah’s Favorite Things…perfumes and spa equipment…a CD, and maybe even a book. Nothing to do with global warming. Just “holiday cheer.”, from the Oprah corp.

And, now I’m finding out that RP wants to beef up big pharma with cocaine manufacturing and production. Nope, they aren’t worried about global warming there at all, at least not in Texas or Florida.

But, surely you realize that isn’t a surprise. Still, it’s good that you mentioned it here. I’m thinking that many other people are unaware of his stance. Some folks need constant reminders to get them to try and connect the dots.

Check out the piece from Chris Hedges. There’s some comfort in the comments there, even though it’s very depressing, at least you’ll know you’re not alone.

Report this

By LWM, November 27, 2007 at 5:51 am Link to this comment

#116171 by Tony Wicher on 11/27 at 12:22 am

Re #116112 by Inherit The Wind on 11/26 at 8:17 pm

Great post, ITW. This country needs more Jews like you.

ITW is representative of most American Jews, and a fair portion of Jews in Israel and elsewhere. Non Credible is probably just an ANSWER Maoist moron. The left does have it’s whackos and conspiracy theorists. It’s not surprising, what with 9/11. It hasn’t been this bad since JFK was assassinated. Rather than attacking people on blog threads, Non Credible should be out vandalizing FLAME, CAMERA and JINSA offices. He probably has no idea who or what they are, clueless moron that he is.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Facts_and_Logic_about_the_Middle_East

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CAMERA

Noam Chomsky, political activist and professor of linguistics at MIT, writes that “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” [36]

Eric Alterman writes in The Nation, that “while it’s fair to call AIPAC obnoxious and even anti-democratic, the same can often be said about, say, the NRA, Big Pharma and other powerful lobbies.”[37]

Zunes describes that some groups who lobby against current U.S. policy on Israel “have accepted funding from autocratic Arab regimes, thereby damaging their credibility” while others have “taken hard-line positions that not only oppose the Israeli occupation but challenge Israel’s very right to exist and are therefore not taken seriously by most policymakers.”[5] Zunes writes that many lobbying groups on the left, such as Peace Action, are “more prone to complain about the power of the Israel lobby and its affiliated PACs than to do serious lobbying on this issue or condition its own PAC contributions on support for a more moderate U.S. policy” in the region.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lobby

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 27, 2007 at 5:28 am Link to this comment

Non Credo on 11/26 at 10:04 pm
(624 comments total)

To ITW:

Of course you can’t answer #116129, so you run away.
********************

You really are a nit-wit, and a nasty one, too.

Have you not noticed that the time-stamps on the posts? That they are PST? And I live in EST…SO I WENT OFF TO BED, YOU JACKASS! Yet if I don’t stay up all night waiting for another non-credible response, NC says I’m “running away”!

I KNEW you would toss a red herring in your next post, I just called it, didn’t I. But since I used the “palestinian children” you had to use something else: Gays.

Let me throw your idiotic question back at you: Do Arab Muslims deserve to have 22 nations that ONLY accept Arab Muslims as full citizens? Do Armenians and Kurds deserve their own nation?

Since I completely discredit M&W;as totally biased, your use of them as your source counts for nothing. They “knew” the “truth” and only assembled those facts that support their pre-conceptions.  It’s called REDUCTIONISM and it is neither valid history, nor valid political science. Iraq was going to happen whether AIPAC and Israel wanted it, or not. Israel certainly did NOT want a destabilized Iraq when it was nicely contained as a result of the far wiser policies of Bush 41 and Clinton.

This is all I’m posting now because, apparently, unlike you, NC, I HAVE a life outside the Internet.

LWM: Nice juxtaposing of NC and Mel Gibson.  Here’s what’s famous from Peekskill, New York: Race riots at the Paul Robeson concert, George Pataki, and Mel Gibson.  Lousy record for that town, eh?

Report this

By LWM, November 27, 2007 at 5:19 am Link to this comment

Actually, Non Credible, your comparison of gays to Jews was fatuous and as poor an analogy as I’ve seen in this thread. My response to your fatuous analogy was sarcastic and snarky, which is all you deserve at this point. It wasn’t meant to be taken any more seriously than your “fatuous analogy”. I think you spend too much time hanging out with the Maoists. You and the Pauliacs have a lot in common.

Report this

By cyrena, November 27, 2007 at 2:49 am Link to this comment

Part 1 of 2#116153 by Nomascerdo
Nomascerdo
•  ….”By the way, when I mentioned ‘complacency’ on the part of airline professionals it would have been more accurate, and less offensive, if I highlighted that the protocols for hijacking has been ‘no resistance’.  Correct me if I am wrong about that but from everything I have read cooperation was always the mantra.  That was based on historical precedent that hijacking situations were more likely to be resolved peacefully via negotiation.  I believe there is also evidence that the longer a hostage crisis elapsed over time, the more likely it would end with fewer casualties.  9-11 did not change everything, but it certainly changed that did it not?”…
You’re probably correct about the protocols for ‘hostage crises’ but we really have nothing to compare to an aviation related hostage crises by hijacking here in the US. So, it sounds like your statistics might just apply to standard swat team type hostage stuff that people watch on TV, because the same wouldn’t necessarily be the case in political type hijacking/hostage taking incidents. From the few that I remember occurring on foreign soil or in international waters, there were MORE casualties if the thing dragged on. Still, that wouldn’t have been relevant during the 9/11 highjackings, because apparently, none of the alleged highjackers was demanding anything. Another ‘first’ for a political highjacking.

I don’t have an opinion on what went wrong with the US protocol on 9/11, because we still don’t know what happened on board those 4 aircraft, EXCEPT that the transformers were turned off, and not a single one of them ever squawked the hijack code. I find that very odd indeed, since it’s the first thing that the crew would have done, if their equipment was in order. Odd that it wouldn’t be…on ALL 4 airplanes!!

I can only guess at anything else, and even that’s a stretch from any norm, because there’s absolutely NO record of anything that went on in those cockpits that can be corroborated in any form or fashion. Another first. I can’t think of another time when the black boxes have been irretrievable, even from the bottom of the ocean.  Lots, and lots, and lots of ‘firsts’ on 9/11. So many ‘firsts’ and ‘unprecedented’, ‘never-ever-happened-in-a-million-years’ type stuff, that it’s just damn near UNBELIEVEABLE!!


•  …”I would also argue that we in fact do want pfizer marketing cocaine to people.  I find that to be a far more attractive option versus a drug cartel or a ruthless gang on our streets.  Use of cocaine has skyrocketed in recent years because of its availability and the demand for it in the populace.  If you know a politician who has an answer for the demand side of the equation by all means let me know who it is….”


I can’t really help you at all on this one. I don’t have any interest in Pfizer marketing cocaine. Does Ron Paul think that Pfizer should market cocaine? Can’t he just mix up his own? Or order it from whatever company supplies it to the hospitals? The hospitals in Texas DO prescribe it for people. I once waited about 6 hours in an emergency room in a Texas hospital while they worked on an old dude having a nose bleed. I guess they finally got it stopped with a dose of the coke. Then, because they had already opened the vile, (or so the doc told him) they just sent him home with the rest. Rest assured, I didn’t want any. Pilots and scholars are advised not to do drugs. They can jack up your brains.

TBC

Report this

By cyrena, November 27, 2007 at 2:48 am Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2 #116153 by Nomascerdo

I don’t know why Nancy Regan couldn’t help you though. She and her husband are the team that kicked off the cocaine frenzy in California way back in the day. They used to throw “Cocaine Cocktail’ parties, at least according to some of the domestic help that worked for them. But, the stuff doesn’t seem to have helped Ronnie R much. (or, maybe that’s why his brain fried out…who knows)

So, the only thing I could suggest you might try planting some cocoa trees. Once it grows, you can just pick the leaves off of the tree and chew on ‘em. That’s what they do in parts of Central and South America. Must be why georgie boy bush bought all of that retirement/escape acreage in Paraguay.

Meantime, how did you ever come up with this thing with the cocaine and Pfizer and Nancy Regan and drug cartels anyway? Did you mention that in the last post? Is it something on the Ron Paul agenda? I’m just asking because I don’t listen to Ron Paul to know if this is the kind of stuff he’s talking about in his campaign. I’ve heard enough from him before. If he’s talking about Pfizer selling cocaine through, I don’t think I’d like it. If they wanna legalize the stuff, that would be OK. But, it would have to be subject to some sort of regulation so we could collect taxes on it. Why let big pharma cash in on that too? Isn’t that already the problem?

•  ”Again, why aren’t members of Congress being locked up for breaking that basic fiduciary responsibility?  Here we see another double standard of accountability in private vs. public regulation.  If that happened in the private sector people would be going to jail.”

This is a bit confusing, since the private sector is robbing us blind with the help of the thugs in Congress, specifically the repugs. Congressional corruption in the repug Congress has been the absolute worse in our history, and that is overwhelmingly documented. AND…NOBODY is going to jail. The folks in the private sector aren’t going to jail, and neither has anybody in the White House. They’re joined at the hip.

OK, I’ve just finished reading your post this time. (I read and respond as I go along, so I just got to that part of it.) So, the rest doesn’t require an answer from me, and I’m sorry I bothered at all now. But, since I did; you’re right that I didn’t live through the depression, but I read a lot, and I’m fortunate enough to have had family members who did live through it, and stayed alive long enough to tell me about it.

Now I don’t think I’ve ever claimed, in this or any other post, to be BRILLIANT, so maybe that’s just another of YOUR impressions?

I do know some brilliant people though.

And, it’s unfortunate that you felt I was being condescending. Maybe it did come across that way, but that’s just how I speak and write. I’m generally pretty straightforward, and I just speak my mind. I try to be diplomatic when I can, but I’m very much attached to reality. I call things like I see ‘em. And, I think you’re the one who’s definitely off the center mark. So, I don’t know if you’d call that a socialist, (for far, far left…) or if you’d just call that a Ron Paul type character to the far, far, right and left, and upside-down of center, all at the same time; possibly at a speed that meets and passes itself along the way?

So, are you checking on the cocaine hook-up for Dr. Paul or yourself? Or…maybe the whole campaign team?

Oh, I’m not a socialist either, but then I guess that would depend on what you call a socialist, eh?  You’ll have to try and come up with another guess. No…on second thought…please don’t.

I’m sure you’ll get it all worked out on your own, but I don’t really need to know how, or what you come up with. Just keep a record for your own posterity.

Never mind about cleaning up all of this mess that the Ron Paul team left behind either. I can get that worked out. Now really, try to get some rest.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 27, 2007 at 1:22 am Link to this comment

Re #116112 by Inherit The Wind on 11/26 at 8:17 pm

Great post, ITW. This country needs more Jews like you.

Report this

By 1drees, November 27, 2007 at 1:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Although the NON-AMERICANS do not like it BUT The future of the World somehow depends on the American Leadership as IF & WHEN the USA goes to WAR ( & it does so very so often, eg Hawaii, Elsalvador, Vietnam,  Guatemala, Korea, IRAQ, etc etc ) its the the NON AMERICANS that suddenly become affected by the American leadership SO ALL NON-AMERICANS do wish that you guys do SELECT the right candidate, One who is preferably not a ZIONIST STOOGE OF A WARMONGER.
As people do know how harmful the depleted Uranium is that was sprayed all over iraq and which will keep killing for ages, see how good a killer bush is?
Hillary has already pledged her support to AIPAC for the WAR on IRAN and maybe later she might promise another few WARS to them, so note that if you please.
Ron Paul, who knows maybe he’s another Zionist Stooge who is so far undercover.
The World shudders at the thought of the American Leadership not changing course.
Enough Blood already, Enough WARS already, LETS see some Sanity on the Global level.
The non Americans are not the least intreested in what Americans do till IT starts killing them.

Report this

By LWM, November 27, 2007 at 1:05 am Link to this comment

You may find the continuing battle against crypto and proto-fascism “hilarious”. I don’t. I take it quite seriously. It is as serious as death and as inevitable as taxes.

Also, since you are so great at predicting the future in absolutes do you have any investment advice for me? Maybe a horse to pick?  Superbowl?

Now is not a good time to sell your home. It is a good time to buy someone else’s foreclosed property. Fortunately Ron paul wasn’t president or the entire nation would be homeless. I don’t play the horses and couldn’t care less about professional sports. If you want to know who I pick for the WH in 2009, based on current statistics, odds are it’s Hillary Clinton. Having said that, a week is a lifetime in politics. Anything can happen but don’t look for any longshots. You could end up with Rudy or Romney.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 27, 2007 at 12:22 am Link to this comment

LWM,

That is hilarious coming from someone who has spent the past few days on a Ron Paul related article thread and has probably written 80-90 posts therein.

Also, since you are so great at predicting the future in absolutes do you have any investment advice for me?  Maybe a horse to pick?  Superbowl?

Please share your omnipotent wisdom with us all seer of seers.

Pfffft

Report this

By LWM, November 27, 2007 at 12:15 am Link to this comment

You continue to think Ron Paul can end Social Security and has an inclination to do so.

Nobody gives a rat’s ass what he says he can or will or cannot or will not do. 


Nobody outside of you fringe extremists from Lew Rockwell and the KKK and Neo-Nazis is going to vote for him. He’s never going to be president. Kucinich has a better chance and he’s not going to make it either. Give it a rest.

Report this

By LWM, November 27, 2007 at 12:11 am Link to this comment

Maybe ITW has a life. Or he needed a bathroom break. I keep a bucket by my computer, not to piss in, but some of these posts are so stupid I feel like I want to puke.


Do you think gay people in America would be safer if there were some “gay state” established in the world as a supposed haven — a ‘gay state’ established by ongoing violent dispossession of the local people, and requiring constant financial and military propping up from the US government?

I thought that was San Francisco? It wasn’t violent (usually) but with two generally high incomes (and no children) it certainly aided in the gradual takeover and gentrification of previously blighted and neglected neighborhoods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification

You need help, man.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 27, 2007 at 12:04 am Link to this comment

1 of 3
Cyrena,

What happened at MIA was undoubtedly a tragedy but it was also an isolated incident.  Comparing the record of the FAM program and the increase in Federal officers flying while armed against the incidents that have occurred and the number of flights daily I would say that record is pretty exceptional.  That is no comfort to the man who lost his life or the family and friends of those people.  I am also certain it is no comfort to the FAM that mistakenly shot an unarmed and innocent person.

By the way, when I mentioned ‘complacency’ on the part of airline professionals it would have been more accurate, and less offensive, if I highlighted that the protocols for hijacking has been ‘no resistance’.  Correct me if I am wrong about that but from everything I have read cooperation was always the mantra.  That was based on historical precedent that hijacking situations were more likely to be resolved peacefully via negotiation.  I believe there is also evidence that the longer a hostage crisis elapsed over time, the more likely it would end with fewer casualties.  9-11 did not change everything, but it certainly changed that did it not?

I agree with your feelings on TSA and DHS. I’m just not convinced that any other candidate will actually change or eliminate those departments and return the system to sanity besides Ron Paul.  He has, from the start, spoken out against both.  I am still personally disturbed about that FEMA ‘fake press conference’ during the California wildfires just to cite another example of incompetence and or outright deception.

I brought up the military aspect because I was attempting to figure out what the risk of armed pilots was.  If you read what I wrote I was guessing it had something to do with accidental discharge in flight.  I was guessing because you weren’t specific.  Apparently you were referring to trigger happy agents in the jetway and in flight.  Agreed that multiple armed characters in an airplane is a scary thought.  The only thing I can think of worse is lifting the restriction on in flight cellphone use.  I kid.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 27, 2007 at 12:03 am Link to this comment

2 of 3
What is the best word to describe someone that is ‘far left’ besides socialist?

I would also argue that we in fact do want pfizer marketing cocaine to people.  I find that to be a far more attractive option versus a drug cartel or a ruthless gang on our streets.  Use of cocaine has skyrocketed in recent years because of its availability and the demand for it in the populace.  If you know a politician who has an answer for the demand side of the equation by all means let me know who it is.  The last one that tried was first lady, Nancy Reagan and by all accounts those attempts have been in vain with destructive consequences.

Furthermore, Ron Paul is against what he calls the ‘medical industrial complex’ just as much as he is against the military industrial one.  Lots and lots of very smart people, including Doctors like Ron Paul, are convinced that the FDA regulatory limits may be doing more harm than good.  Drugs that are ultimately proven to help thousands are kept off the market for years and years during this process in order to prevent harmful side effects from hurting relatively small numbers.  People who are terminally ill should be able to choose under the advice of their doctor if they wish to take an experimental compound.  How you can ignore the thousands of lives that are lost as a result of this process perplexes me.  I personally know several people that could have potentially been saved by drugs like Avastin while it was still in clinical testing required by the FDA and not available to people who, if given the choice from their doctor, might have voluntarily taken it.  Furthermore, the extraordinarily expensive regulatory process favors the largest most well capitalized companies and damages independent scientists or small companies who cannot afford to pay for all of the myriad trials required.  Oftentimes in biotech small companies run out of money and are then bought up by the major players for this very reason.  This further aggregates power and control over the marketplace by the big players. FDA is very pro big pharma biotech.  So is the AMA consequently.  No need for me to get into the billions of dollars in lobbying power these groups exert over our policymakers.

You continue to think Ron Paul can end Social Security and has an inclination to do so.  He doesn’t have the mandate nor the authority to do so.  In addition, he has been one of the foremost proponents of lockbox legislation to protect the TRUST fund that has been raided by our hyper growth, hyper spend government at the behest of special interests.  He very correctly understands that the money in that trust is not the government’s money but that of the people who were, in fact, forced to pay into it.  Again, why aren’t members of Congress being locked up for breaking that basic fiduciary responsibility?  Here we see another double standard of accountability in private vs. public regulation.  If that happened in the private sector people would be going to jail.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 27, 2007 at 12:03 am Link to this comment

3 of 3
You also seem to ignore qualifying statements like “MY IMPRESSION” and then go on to rant and rave about how brilliant you are etc etc.

You also wrote “Things were better than they are now, even during the depression. People may have been hungry, and Lord knows there were hundreds of thousands of war causalities, but at least we didn’t have a population gone totally berserk behind a boogeyman that nobody’s actually seen or heard from in years. Like, at least a decade, because it’s been about that long since anybody actually got OBL on the record. (I think it was time magazine, you can look it up).”

I really just don’t understand that statement at all but in the context of the other things you said I guess it makes sense. How “hundreds of thousands of war causalities” is better than anything going on today just further demonstrates your hypocrisy and demonstrates that lack of real compassion for others that you think you have.  I referred to that in my other post as well if you care to go back and learn more about yourself.

Also thanks for keeping up your condescending tone and assuming I am a child.  It took you a little longer to bring out your intellectual ‘big guns’ of doing so but you performed , as expected, nonetheless. 

I have no clue how old you are and I don’t really care.  That said, I doubt that you lived through the depression and can make any quantifiable comparison on what it is like now versus then.  If you actually did live through the depression and were old enough to have a reasonable impression of that time I am impressed that you know how to use a computer.  You are one hip great, maybe great great grandma!

Furthermore it is sad that someone who claims to be as old and wise as yourself still acts so childish.  If I am such a child, as you claim, at least I have an excuse. What is yours?

Report this

By LWM, November 27, 2007 at 12:00 am Link to this comment

#116136 by Non Credo on 11/26 at 9:47 pm
(623 comments total)

Has anyone noticed that ITW and LWM are never here for any length of time together, and that they never have any conversations, despite the wonderful similarity in tone and substance of their posts?

Has anyone else noticed that Non Credo bears a striking resemblance to Mel Gibson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson_DUI_incident

Report this

By cyrena, November 26, 2007 at 10:53 pm Link to this comment

Part 1 of 5 reply to #116033 by Nomascerdo

•  Are you referring to FAM’s as the one exception?  If so, can a pilot willingly deny a FAM access to their aircraft?  Do they have the authority to deny?  You would know better but it seems unlikely to me that a commercial pilot would have authority to deny.  Later in your post you said pre 9-11 they could deny OTHER types of federal officials from carrying weapons onboard but then you imply that post 9-11 they cannot.

Nope. NOT FAM’s, since I wasn’t referring to them at all, though they would be an exception. I was referring to the ones that I mentioned. I was referring to those who have routinely been ‘armed’ in the past, and in the previous post, I named them. I believe I said the DEA, ATF, INS, and FBI. Occasionally we might have come across a CIA person or even a collection of Secret Service agents, but that was rare. So, when I said the one exception, I apparently didn’t get around to naming what that would be. But yes, pilots can in fact deny all of the others. – IF THEY CHOOSE, and have legitimate reasons for making that decision. So can the dispatcher. It’s really simple. They just check the weapons. And, while this may come as a surprise to you, there were many of these personnel that didn’t have a problem with that. They weren’t working, and so they didn’t need their weapons. For those who felt very insecure without their guns strapped to them, they could always take another flight.

This was generally the case when we wound up with more than one person traveling with a firearm on the same flight, whether they were from the same agency or not. It’s a nightmare to have 3, 4, 5 or more people traveling with firearms on any given flight, because the bureaucracy/regulations require that ALL of them be introduced to the cockpit and cabin crews, (that’s the case with any person traveling with a firearm anyway) and paperwork and seat numbers must be accomplished as well. Now, when you get MORE than one on the same flight, they also have to be introduced to EACH OTHER, and each of them have to be advised of where the others are seated. (in the case of a shootout at OK corral). So, you can maybe, possibly, understand why this could be if nothing more, an operational headache, just so that these people can carry their guns with them.

Now, in the event that one or more of them is escorting a prisoner, the same bureaucracy applies, on top of a few other steps. Like there are only certain places on the aircraft where they can be seated. Are you with me so far? These people must always board first, (so the passengers can’t see their handcuffs or leg irons) and as I mentioned, ALL must be physically ‘introduced’ to the crews and each other, with all paperwork in order. Because of the way most airlines operate, there is very limited time to accomplish all of this, AND tend to the remaining paying passengers, and still come up with the promised ‘on time’ departures that most American’s hold so dear.

People travelling with prisoners would obviously be an exception that a pilot would allow, although when it comes down to it, they could be denied passage as well. (I’ve never known that to happen, but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t) Federal Air Marshalls aren’t even in the category of those that I was talking about. But, in eras of pre-9/11, of course FAM’s weren’t denied boarding or asked to check their firearms. NOW however, I wouldn’t have a problem at all with doing that. Not after seeing the disaster this new group of them is capable of. (you’ll see that further down in the communication.). Under those circumstances, a pilot can allow for the FAM to check his/her firearms, or they can advise operations to find another crewmember to fly the thing. Then the Chief Pilot could decide. That would be a last resort, because it would create a delay. But, better that then dead passengers or crew, killed by trigger happy FAM’s.
TBC

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 26, 2007 at 10:52 pm Link to this comment

Bobadi falls into the trap of questionable science.  Lots of folks think that due to changes in pacific ocean currents and the end of a seven year cycle relating to the sun that we are entering a cooling period.

Do you blame the southern California wildfires on global warming too?  They were arson by the way and the result of a dry winter out here.

Ron Paul simply states that we truly don’t know the cause of global warming or how to effectively deal with it.  He clearly thinks that humans are spewing massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere but the truth is, beyond some man made models based on a VERY LIMITED amount of global temperature data it is impossible to say conclusively what is happening. 

Furthermore, with oil prices at record temps, and the steadily growing awareness of the deleterious impact of pollution locally, regionally, and potentially on a global scale there is demand and high growth market for green technologies and renewable, non CO2 emmitting power generation technologies.

Those who would take questionable science to hoard public funds to enhance their personal business projects, or movies, or books etc should be questioned just like those who would muscle our foreign policy via their special interest lobbies, to gain control of public funds to enhance their personal business of oil production or weapons manufacturing.

How can we forget that scientists just recently claimed that the unusually strong hurricane season in 2005 was absolutely a result of global warming only to have it followed by two of the weakest hurricane seasons in history.  Now what??

Human beings and the planet both have a fantastic capability to adapt.  Lets say the planet was created one million years ago (we know it was billions) but lets just use one million. Then lets measure 30 years of climate data, compile it and draw meaningful conclusions on what is happening and lets also pretend we understand what is happening.  Just using this obviously simplistic and inaccurate sample from total history we are using .003% of data to make grave predictions.  How does that pass the smell test in that example.  Now divide 30 by however many years you think the earth has actually been in existence and ask yourself again.

I also find it curious that all global warming models somehow pretend that volcanoes don’t exist.  Have we figured out a way to stop volcanoes?  Is there a ‘War on Volcanoes’ that my taxes are paying for that I’m not aware of because if so I am pissed!

Report this

By cyrena, November 26, 2007 at 10:51 pm Link to this comment

Part 2 of 5 reply to #116033

•  Perhaps the program hasn’t been as successful as the authors expected?  In fact it seems that according to the proponents of these measures at secure-skies.org, onerous regulations have kept it from becoming a practical reality.  You seem to be happy about that but the security situation according to their numbers and recent snafus at screening checkpoints suggest otherwise.

You’re doing it again, in your suggestions of what I ‘seem to be happy about’. I don’t have an opinion about what you’ve discovered at secure-skies.org, because I’ve never even read the thing. Rather I speak for a bygone age of professional aviators. They don’t like various and sundry folk from WHATEVER the agency is, flying around armed. It’s difficult for me to understand why anyone would fail to understand that, so I’m exercising patience with what I assume to be a young and brainwashed post 9/11 mind.

As for the snafus at checkpoints, and onerous security regulations, you can thank the new TSA and your favorite administration for that. It’s all a major disaster as far as most airline personnel are concerned. You have people doing security clearances that don’t have a clue. Not even a small clue. It’s a lack of personal judgment, which can’t be learned from a book or a 2 week training session.

•  Are you referring to an accidental discharge?  Has this ever happened with tragic results in the past couple of decades?

Since I don’t have time to dig up all of the info on what have been –since 9/11- various incidents, I’ll relay just ONE, and we can fit that in with your question about FAM’S. Federal Air Marshalls of course have always been able to carry arms on board, because that’s their entire purpose for ‘being’. In the past few decades that I was in the operation, I probably came across a Federal Air Marshall less than a dozen times. As you’ve mentioned already, there simply were not many of them, because there was no need for ‘many’ of them. I will say they always conducted their business with the ultimate of professionalism, and I was never the least bit uncomfortable with having them on board. We are talking now still, about pre-TSA days. Please keep in mind when you’re diagnosing my level of ‘concern’, that most of my time spent was prior to the creation of the TSA. I will say that the TSA that has been created as a result of 9/11 is bad news. That is my personal opinion.

The one incident that I will refer for you, involved the fatal shooting of an unarmed passenger, by a new, inexperienced, and obviously unprofessional Federal Air Marshall.

http://www.airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?id=4584&siteSection=5

This passenger was shot by a Federal Air Marshall on a jet way at MIA, just about 2 years ago. Having investigated the incident myself, I realized that this of course would NEVER have happened or occurred in the days before the new “TSA” and the introduction of these new FAM’S to the staff. Why? Because they are unprofessional, don’t know what the hell they’re doing, and in this case, shot an unarmed passenger dead. This is another reason why pilots don’t like little level nitwits from the various agencies riding around with fire arms. Trigger happy people lacking any measure of common sense or good judgment about any given situation can create havoc.

As for the ‘accidental’ discharging of a weapon PRIOR to 9/11, I can’t think of any off the top of my head. (though there have been since – with the new influx of TSA nitwits) I did already explain to you however, how easily that can happen if you’ve got 4 or 5 armed passengers on one flight, and somebody makes a wrong move, and nobody knows who’s who.

As for the military, I don’t know how they deal with such a thing, (or why you would even mention it) because it’s not relevant, (not even CLOSE to relevant) for commercial passenger carrier operations.

TBC

Report this

By cyrena, November 26, 2007 at 10:50 pm Link to this comment

Part 3 of 5 #116033

•  Don’t fighter pilots have personal sidearms which, I would guess, undergo far more extreme conditions than a pressurized commercial flight?  Maybe it has something to do with pressurized vs. non-pressurized cabins and the different risks an errant bullet would pose in each environment?  How has El-Al dealt with that risk since 1967?

Here again. NOT RELEVANT to passenger operations, so nobody cares. Pressurization vs non-pressurization is only a peripheral issue once the damage has already occurred. People paying for travel on commercial airlines in the US don’t want to even CONSIDER that such a thing would happen. We’re talking about SAFTY FIRST, which means we don’t shoot bullets around, and just hope that they won’t do any fatal damage. What you’re suggesting is that well, maybe the thing won’t actually fall out of the sky from a few bullet holes. Sorry, that’s just not the way we run an operation. Commercial airlines provide transportation, not enroute war games. You have to stick to your videos for that. We don’t wanna have any lead falling into the caviar.

And, I don’t know how El-Al has dealt with it, since I don’t really care about that either. I don’t fly their less than friendly skies. Never have. Not planning to. 

•  My impression was that you were very obviously “pro big government” and I am surprised to see you claim otherwise and get defensive as you have about it.

Okee doke, this will probably be the last on this, Dr. Phyllis. You’re ‘surprised’ and I’m ‘defensive.’ No, actually, you’re nuts, and I’m getting spooked. How do you get ‘defensive’ out of my comment that you were doing a psychoanalysis of me based on a comment from a blog? Sorry kid. I don’t know you, and you don’t know me. I wasn’t ‘defensive’ as much as I was pointing out that you were wrong. I’m not “pro” big government, and I’m actually NOT ‘in favor’ of the kind of huge government expansion that we’ve seen in the post 9/11 world. Matter of fact, if I was going to be real ‘up in arms’ (emotionally speaking, since I have no use for weapons of the type you’ve been going on about) it would be BECAUSE of this overwhelming bureaucracy that has developed. In my industry, it has been an absolute nightmare, not just for the personnel, but for the passengers as well. The TSA is the absolute worst of the horrors. Everybody is on the highest level of paranoia, but still not enough to catch a threat if one were to occur. (none have).

So, for the record, I wasn’t ‘defensive’ and you should study up more on applied psychology. I was OFFENDED, (and said as much, in very clear language) when you suggested that commercial pilots had become ‘complacent’ as a result of not having had a highjacking in the past several decades. That is a lie, and so I took offense to it.

Now, in addition to all of the horrors produced by the TSA and the DHS (another worthless addition) there’s all of the spying, and the Patriot Act, and oh I could just go on and on, but you must already know about those things.

What I DID attempt to explain to you, that you obviously missed in your fervor to do whatever it is that you’re doing, is to explain that there IS a reason for the rule of law, and that it is in place, (regulations of all sorts) for reasons that you may not have a reason to question. Most people don’t, and that’s understandable in our society. You lectured me prior to learning of my own background, on how I’m ‘putting my life’ in the hands of the pilots every time I get on an airplane, and I attempted to explain to you that we are ALL trusting EACH OTHER with our lives in that respect, just as the pilots themselves are. And the ONLY reason that it WORKS, and we remain relatively SAFE, is because there is a complex set of rules, regulations, and protocols at work. So yes, I DO believe very much in a measure of regulation for many of the functions that we routinely engage in, because those things would not be otherwise possible.

TBC

Report this

By cyrena, November 26, 2007 at 10:48 pm Link to this comment

Part 4 of 5 reply to #116031 by Nomascerdo

And yes, in my 2nd career, I am very focused on other rules of law as well. I’m still in total disbelief that the current administration has violated the highest laws of the universe in its decision to practice torture. I am devastated that habeas corpus, a cornerstone of our fundamental structure of law has been thrown out and disregarded. I could go on, but I think I’ve made that all pretty clear.

I should probably mention that I’m NOT running for office, and that I’m firmly convinced that Ron Paul is close to the worst of the worst. Would he be worse than Dick Bush? Hard to imagine, but then, who would have ever guessed that Dick Cheney would go this far? I mean, I knew how dangerous he was in advance, but even I never expected this.

So, my only purpose in pointing out the disasters of a possible Ron Paul presidency are the same as they were in pointing out the potential dangers of a Dick Bush presidency. I don’t really wanna find out if Ron Paul could be worse, when we know that there ARE other candidates that would be acceptable. Unfortunately for you and others, none of them are republicans. And, that’s really only unfortunate for those people who are that ideologically sworn to the repuglican party, or the radical right, or the radical Christian conservatives. For any US citizen that simply wants a president and an administration that will properly lead this country based on the constitution and the democratic principles upon which it was built, and basic HUMAN RIGHTS, it doesn’t really make a damn bit of difference what party they belong to.

So, while I don’t claim to speak for every other voting American citizen, I do believe that we are smart enough to avoid what has been allowed to happen to our country in the past 7 years, because of the radical thugs that have taken over. So IF we do in fact have a chance to get our country back, so that it belongs again to ‘we the people’, we certainly wouldn’t want a Ron Paul type heading it up. And, that’s why Americans need to know what he’s really about.

Yes, we KNOW that he is a racist, and that he has received the majority of his political support in the past, from RACISTS. This is NOT news –to me- And, anyone who is NOT aware of that; should make themselves aware of it, because that’s what these political campaigns are supposed to be about. Yes, we know that he is apparently a controlling sexist/patriarchal type as well, since he’s come out loud and clear on his feelings about abortion. He disapproves, and I’m not impressed by his skimming around it, by claiming that he’ll ‘leave it up to the states’. It’s not an issue for the states either.

Yes, we also know that he would, and as quickly as possible, dismantle social security. He’s talking to the wrong crowd on that, because our current populace has a large percentage of those who have worked and paid into that system all of their lives, and expect it to do what it was supposed to do. Then there’s that small matter of foreign policy. We cannot survive in the 21st Century in an isolationist position.

Indeed it would be just wonderful if we could remove our military from all of the many countries where we have so disrespectfully taken up residence and permanent occupation. That would sure solve the ‘terrorist’ problem. Hurrah for RP if those are his plans. But, we don’t need HIM to do that. ANYBODY can do that. Hell, I could do that!! We just pass down the orders to the appropriate commanders…tell the guys and girls to pack their shit, and come on home. And, we call up the leaders of whatever countries we’ve so disrespected and say hey, we’re sorry about what our former leaders have done to you, but we’re bringing our troops home now, and we’re closing all of those bases. Please allow them to leave peacefully. When the dust settles, let us know whatever help you need to start fixing everything we’ve torn up.

TBC

Report this

By cyrena, November 26, 2007 at 10:47 pm Link to this comment

Part 5 of 5 reply to #116031 by Nomascerdo

Meantime, we STILL have to make other ‘amends’ with the rest of the world, and start working within the parameters of the Universal Laws and Treaties to which we are committed. Because, whether you or he likes it or not, we are now totally dependant on the will/whims of too many other nations. Ron Paul can’t and won’t do that either.

Aside from his promise to remove our troops from foreign shores, every single thing else that RP has planned for us here at home is more horror than I want to consider.

Sorry I didn’t get passed the 3rd page of your post. I left when you started in on my diagnosis as a socialist.

But, if you’ve got extra time after all of that, maybe you could come clean up our neighborhood. It’s got all this shit laying around that the RP supporters left behind…what a messy bunch they are. I sure hope he doesn’t run his medical practice this way.

Last but not least on the part that started this whole thing off. I said that armed pilots could not have saved themselves and/or their passengers in the catastrophe of 9/11. Having guns would have been of no assistance to them. I say that based on my own determination of what most likely occurred on those flights. You are correct in suggesting (which I already have) that we don’t KNOW what (if any) weapons were carried on board any of those flights. I DO KNOW, that despite the fact that security screening at all of those airports was conducted by contract personnel, (and not airline personnel) the odds of 19 people getting through security (even bad security) with any serious weapons, to board 4 separate flights… is next to nil.

Firearms would have been detected. Explosives would have been detected. KNIVES would have been detected. Bats, golf clubs, mace, blah, blah, blah…would have been detected…at least from SOME of them. So, you’ll have to figure out some sort of weapon that could have escaped the eyes and ears of every single security check point, for every one of those alleged 19 highjackers, and STILL have it dangerous enough to effectively silence all of the 8 pilots in those cockpits, whose own lives were obviously at stake.

Meantime, I know a lot of pilots. I don’t know a single one of them who would give up his or her cockpit to an intruder, without one hell of a fight. So, their ‘enemy’ was bigger than anything for which guns would have provided assistance.

That makes all of your research on the TSA and secure skies, and all the rest of it…, worthless. Because in reality, the TSA is worthless. So is the Dept. of Homeland Security. Don’t you ever wonder who came up with all of these names, and what drugs they were on? I can’t think of a time in my entire life or even in the history that I’ve studied BEFORE my own life, when we – as a country, were ever any LESS secure. Things were better than they are now, even during the depression. People may have been hungry, and Lord knows there were hundreds of thousands of war causalities, but at least we didn’t have a population gone totally berserk behind a boogeyman that nobody’s actually seen or heard from in years. Like, at least a decade, because it’s been about that long since anybody actually got OBL on the record. (I think it was time magazine, you can look it up).

Report this

By LWM, November 26, 2007 at 10:29 pm Link to this comment

Ernest,

I’m familiar with the non-scientific online poll at DFA. Think man. Use the brain in your head. If you want the same things most of us here want (not the loonitarians and Pauliacs) you had better get with the program in the reality based world. That’s the only way we go forward. If you don’t have the patience to dedicate a big chunk of your life -I’m talking the next 20 years - to just make the slightest progress, get out now. You aren’t cut out for this. Short of violent revolution, this will take years and move slower than a right libertarian’s mind.

Report this

By LWM, November 26, 2007 at 10:23 pm Link to this comment

#116096 by antispin on 11/26 at 7:33 pm

Non Credo:  Yeah, the Libertarians have this “lone wolf” idolization that just goes too far.  I fully support the “leave me alone” doctrine until it crosses over into the “let me be while I clobber you” credo.

Non Credo is just that rarest of anti-semites. A left leaning anti-semite. 

There was a proposition here in California to allow people to do whatever they want with their “private property” including, say, opening a gravel pit to mine for…zinc, or whatever.  No EIR, no consequences if the neighbors are all killed, etc.  These Libertarians are just a wee bit simple minded, though their hearts seem to be in the right place.

What is Paul’s position on drugs laws?  The drug laws are among the most regressive and racist of all.  If he were for legalization I *might* even overlook his position on women’s rights.  We need to get all these poor non-violent innocents out of prison pronto, like day before yesteryear would be good.

And you have answered your own question about drug legalization in the previous paragraph. Big Pharma would love for Ron Paul to do for them what he has been trying to do for the snake oil salesman in the business of herbal supplements. Libertarian legalization schemes are the worst. One thing Non Credo is right about, right libertarians are evangelistic morons selling salvation in this life you can’t even get in the next. There is nothing there that would appeal to any sensible indivdual who is over the age of 20 and read Ayn Rand once, a few pages, and laughed their ass off or just got sick to their stomach at the ravings of a second rate romance novelist cum faux philosopher. What About Bob? He’s in court.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=64

Imagine that with all kinds of drugs. That is what a libertarian nightmare looks like.

We don’t want Pfizer marketing cocaine and PCP to people. Ron Paul, the supposed anti-corporatist has no problem with it. There is only one way to deal with the public health issue of drugs and drug use and Ron Paul ain’t it. The Dutch know how to do it, but that’s “evil communism”!

Report this

By Bobadi, November 26, 2007 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena, thanks for the reply.
I am speaking metaphorically by using the term “sexy.”
I mean that everyone here is emotionally involved, and all seem to feel very strongly in their own personal favorite; political ideology.

The only problem with this is that you are all arguing in a burning house about to collapse.

This one most important issue is being ignored in here, (Global Warming) in favor of endless discussion of all manner of.. ~whatever.~

I have felt before; as if I were chained to a mass of fools running themselves over a cliff, dragging me with them when we “ugly Americans” and our cheerleading media allowed Bush and his endless ruin.

Now I feel the exact same thing when this thread ignores the one issue that should simply end the discussion of Ron Paul; his insane stance on Global Warming.

He insists it is only a conspiracy. Nothing at all to worry about, and therefore has no ambition to affect it, other then to enlarge it dramatically by removing ecology controls with his free market economy.

Oh well, I will leave you all to bicker on. Good luck with that, and good luck to us all.

Report this

By antispin, November 26, 2007 at 10:13 pm Link to this comment

#116128 by Nomascerdo is a post i’d like to see as a Democratic/Republican platform statement.  Is this not self-evident?  That locking up (possessing) young people for posession is wrong is just so self-evident.  Is it any wonder there’s 911-denial?

If there’s anything that you want,
If there’s anything that you need,
There’s no need to be evasive,
Money talks, and it’s persuasive.
Possession
Possession

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 26, 2007 at 9:59 pm Link to this comment

Detainment and incarceration a result of a jury conviction for a VIOLENT CRIME would be justified by anyone with a grasp on reality that doesn’t get stuck on petty semantics. Libertarian or not.  Playing with words is less fun than playing with yourself, I recommend a change of course.

Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that he abhors the horrific impact that the War on Drugs has had on inner city communities where NON-VIOLENT “criminals” can literally be locked away for LIFE because of the three strikes rule.  Locking away drug addicts and throwing them into our massive prison system and turning them into convicted felons is extreme prejudice.  He points to the fact that we don’t treat alcoholics with this prejudice, why drug users?  It is a medical issue in his mind.  He is a doctor after all…  From there everyone knows the story… In prison someone will likely be subjected to violence and if they had an addiction, turning to drugs in prison to escape the horrific environment seems like a very likely thing to happen.  If they are released from prison their status as ex-cons has made them incapable of participating in normal society.  They turn back to the underground economy of drug dealing, they are inevitably caught, and the cycle continues.

This in my mind, is the number one issue that has negatively impacted our minority and inner city communities.  It has torn apart countless families and imprisoned hundreds of thousands of African American males among others.

Meanwhile, violent criminals go free. Rapists go free. Child molesters go free.  Why?  Because the prisons are overcrowded with drug offenders. 

Stop the madness already. This country needs a president who will actually talk about this from a reasoned perspective.  Again RP

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 26, 2007 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo on 11/26 at 8:28 pm
(618 comments total)

re: #116112 by Inherit The Wind on 11/26 at 8:17 pm:

ITW is in an absolute thrill of self-righteousness. I only agree to hate him because I want him to be happy.

I’ve surrendered, like poor Winston, finally loving Big Brother.

“Yes, yes, ITW - I hate you. I will be the monster you want me to be! I promise to appear very dangerous and wicked and threatening, so that you will feel invigorated as you charge through your day at the office!

“I now realize that this is a gentile’s purpose in life - to spice yours with the delicious hatred that makes you feel alive!”

***********

Of course, I notice that you don’t actually ADDRESS any of my points—you don’t dare. Instead it’s sarcasm and insults and lies like “I now realize that this is a gentile’s purpose in life - to spice yours with the delicious hatred that makes you feel alive!”.  Business as usual.

Tell me, oh wise one:

Did I, at 10 years old, deserve to be beaten up solely for being a Jew, as I was?
Did you think I WANTED that, to feel “justified”?

Or that, like ANY kid I was scared shitless?

Which is it?

How can ANY 10 year old child deserve that?

I’ll bet you answer with another round of crack-wise, innuendos and dodge the question.

Oh, I know: You’ll throw out the diversion “Does a Palestinian child deserve that?” (No, he/she doesn’t either)

But that’s just to avoid the question.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 26, 2007 at 9:31 pm Link to this comment

Ernest Canning on 11/26 at 8:23 pm
(1199 comments total)

Lighten up ITW.  Don’t you remember the laugh we had when you said that they should have prosecuted Arial Sharon when he was lucid, and I responded with:  Sharon was lucid?  When?

Sure! And it WAS a good grin! So you KNOW I’m critical when jackasses have too much influence in Israel.

But YOU didn’t post that I WANT to be hated. Or that I’m disloyal to America. Nor could I imagine you saying something like that.

But Non-Credible did.  He pretends he’s standing on some sort of moral high ground and then posts racist garbage like that.  Plus he’s trying to discredit another poster by claiming it’s really me—and to discredit me in the same sleazy way.

Since when did I need an alter-ego to fight my battles?

Report this

By cann4ing, November 26, 2007 at 9:23 pm Link to this comment

Lighten up ITW.  Don’t you remember the laugh we had when you said that they should have prosecuted Arial Sharon when he was lucid, and I responded with:  Sharon was lucid?  When?

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 26, 2007 at 9:17 pm Link to this comment

If you really want to learn how Ron Paul views the war on drugs and the substance behind it visit here and read away:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=23

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 26, 2007 at 9:17 pm Link to this comment

But you know what? I’m learning more of what I didn’t want to think true. A hell of a lot of American Jews, even “liberals”, really are fanatical defenders of Israel, right or wrong, and they really do put Israel first, politically. They really do commonly hate Arabs and believe them inferior. It simply turns out that this is true. They really do subscribe to the idea that there’s a special, separate, privileged morality for Israel and the Jews. How many Jews think like this? I can only say from my experience that it seems very common.

***

You know, NC, if you actually have READ my posts you’ll know I am VERY critical of Israel when it acts stupidly and cruelly due to the Likudnik fanatics.

But unlike YOU, I don’t believe that the baby should be thrown out with the bath water.  Ending Israel will mean ANOTHER holocaust, this time of 5 million.

***

I don’t think anyone should adore his own country the way ostensibly American Jews idolize Israel. I do not love America that much, nor should I.

***

I do. I LOVE America. I LOVE the IDEA of America, and I HATE what George W. Bush is doing to it. 

Try telling that to one of the remaining WWII vets who was at Normandy or Guadalcanal or Sicily or Iwo Jima.  I’ve seen the graves in France.

***

It would be sick and wrong. Am I charging “disloyalty”, that old “anti-Semitic canard”? Damn straight. It is a fact that effective disloyalty to America in favor of Israel is actually pretty common among Jews. I never used to think that. I learned it by direct experience.

***

I have met SOME like that. I believe they don’t belong in America except as guests. Let THEM go to Israel if they prefer.

I do NOT prefer Israel to America, but I’ll be DAMNED if I’ll let people like you, and AntiPatrickHenry and Aryan-Tologist and “Robert The Xeroxer” create some sort of acid-test of what that loyalty means.  You have NO more right to do that than the McCarthyites.

***
You know, you start to see a pattern, Tony.  Jimmy Carter is simply the most prominent innocent and good and harmless person they have tried to smear as “Jew-hater”. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s starting to develop some hatred for Jews after all, given what the “mainstream Jewish community” has put him through.
****

Unlike you, I think Carter understands that most Jews in America don’t feel that way about him and ADMIRE him, as I do.  Because I think Jimmy Carter is a much better person than you are.

***

People like ITW and LWM and Lefty want to be hated. They need it, so they can say, “See! You hate Jews! And that’s why we don’t have to listen to anything you say about Israel!” ..... It’s one sick, ugly culture.

****

You ASSHOLE! 
Have YOU ever been beaten up as a small child for no reason other than you are a Jew?  I have.
Have YOU been terrorized everyday as a kid by a bunch of thugs whose daddies were in a pre-war American Nazi Bund? I have.
Have you had a MUCH bigger kid say he was going to beat you up JUST because you are a Jew and saying “I’m really going to ENJOY this!”  I have.
Have you had your nose broken solely because you were a Jew? I have.
Have you seen a gang of teen-agers egg on another teen to fight your 15 year old brother—with an ID bracelet as brass knuckles? I have.
Have you had a woman go cold on you the SECOND she learned you were a Jew? I have.
Have you had someone who wanted money from you for nothing respond to your “no” with “C’mon, don’t be Jewish”? I have.
To paraphrase Tom Clancy: “Have you had 6 million of your close relatives turned into air pollution?” 
I have.

Only a true complete and total anti-Semite would believe that a people WANTS to be hated.  I guess you think that small list of things I have experienced, even at 10 and 12 years old was OK and deserved because “Jews want to be hated”.

What the HELL could I have done at 10 years old to deserve that?

You’ve defined yourself better than I ever could.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 26, 2007 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment

For those thinking that all we have to do to change the status quo is to elect a Democrat, consider this:  Last weekend the Democratic leadership selected Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, a man intimately linked to torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib, to deliver their radio address to the nation.

http;//www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/26/1516202

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 26, 2007 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

#116086 by Non Credo on 11/26 at 6:57 pm

That whole example is so weird and twisted and ridiculous that if that is what you think libertarians or more importantly what the people that support Ron Paul and thus what Ron Paul actually believes you seriously need to get a clue.

The role of government is clearly defined to enforce and protect the private property and natural rights of all citizens.  If one citizen infringes upon the rights of another it is arguably the only role of government to intervene and punish he/she doing harm if they are proven guilty in a fair court of law.

I think you are confusing people who believe in libertarianism with anarchists?? Really no clue.  It is so baffling. While the two share SOME philosophical similarities they are most certainly not the same thing.  I would also point out that Ron Paul is probably more Constitutionalist than a big L Libertarian.  All he speaks about is our FEDERAL government’s duty TO FOLLOW THE LAW.  The Supreme Law aka The Constitution.  The biggest problem in the current situation and with large centralized monolithic government in general is that if it over steps, rarely can it be put back into its rightful place.  This is precisely the reason why Constitutionalists and people concerned about where things have gone are throwing their support behind Ron Paul.  There is recognition of a crisis here and a pushing aside of petty partisan scare mongering.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 26, 2007 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul on Drugs:

  *  Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly. (Sep 2007)
  * Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)
  * $500B on War on Drugs since 1970s has been a total failure. (Sep 2007)
  * Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
  * Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
  * Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
  * War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000)
  * Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
  * Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)

Ron Paul on Civil Rights:

  *  Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage. (Oct 2007)
  * No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)
  * No affirmative action for any group. (Sep 2007)
  * No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough. (Sep 2007)
  * First Amendment was written for controversial speech. (Sep 2007)
  * Use power of presidency to restore habeas corpus. (Sep 2007)
  * Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
  * Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
  * Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
  * Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
  * Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
  * Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
  * Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
  * Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
  * Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

Ron Paul on Abortion:

  *  Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
  * Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
  * Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
  * Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
  * No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
  * Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
  * Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
  * Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
  * Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
  * Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
  * Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
  * Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
  * Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
  * Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
  * Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
  * Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
  * Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
  * No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
  * Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Report this

By antispin, November 26, 2007 at 8:33 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo:  Yeah, the Libertarians have this “lone wolf” idolization that just goes too far.  I fully support the “leave me alone” doctrine until it crosses over into the “let me be while I clobber you” credo. 

There was a proposition here in California to allow people to do whatever they want with their “private property” including, say, opening a gravel pit to mine for…zinc, or whatever.  No EIR, no consequences if the neighbors are all killed, etc.  These Libertarians are just a wee bit simple minded, though their hearts seem to be in the right place.

What is Paul’s position on drugs laws?  The drug laws are among the most regressive and racist of all.  If he were for legalization I *might* even overlook his position on women’s rights.  We need to get all these poor non-violent innocents out of prison pronto, like day before yesteryear would be good.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 26, 2007 at 8:33 pm Link to this comment

As I have stated repeatedly, I do not believe that We the People should cast our votes on the basis of polls, media punditry about who is electable etc. and should only base our approval for someone to assume the world’s most powerful office on the substance of their policies.  Unfortunately, I see that many otherwise intelligent individuals persist in poll watching.  For those who so insist, consider the following poll results released by Zogby International today, 11/26/07—If the general election were held, Hillary Clinton would lose to ever one of the top four Republican candidates.  Either Edwards or Obama would defeat every one of those Republican candidates.  The poll did not state how Kucinich would fare in those head-to-head matchups with Republicans.  The poll is posted at the Brad Blog.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 26, 2007 at 8:24 pm Link to this comment

#116018 by Non Credo on 11/26 at 4:06 pm
(614 comments total)

#116014 by Ernest Canning on 11/26 at 3:50 pm:

“I made it clear in my post, which was already over-long, that I was not talking about every single Jew. I only said that I found that these attitudes to be common, even among liberal Jews, so that, yes, I have come to expect them and I am no longer positive or even neutral in my expectations of Jews’ attitudes on this subject. My negative sense of the probable attitudes I will encounter has started to become something like prejudice. I fight it, but there it is. It’s the result of experience.”
—————————————————————————-
NC,

Indeed I also have found an emotional attachment to Israel on the part of many otherwise liberal or even very progressive Jews which I see as irrational and unhealthy because it enables immoral Israei policies by causing them to use their influence in the United States, which is considerable, to support those immoral policies. I see this as a traumatic condition that is the legacy of the Holocaust. I do not have negative feelings toward them because of this, but rather sympathy and a desire to help heal them. And I would never allow such experience as I have had in the past to condition my attitude toward other Jewish people I have never met.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 26, 2007 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

Nabih:  I have gone back and read your post.  For starters let me congratulate you on your diligent effort to enhance your understanding by reading the extended works of others—books.  I suspect there are a good number of those who post on this site who seldom pick up a book.

I have read most of the books you listed.  Some additional worthwhile reads would be Antonia Juhasz, “The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time,”  Chalmers Johnson, “The Sorrows of Empire,” any number of works by Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, “Beyond Chutzpah,” Jeff Faux, “The Global Class War,” Jeremy Scahill, “Blackwater,” and, most especially, Naomi Klein, “The Shock Doctrine.

Now to your central point, while it is possible you are correct about Mr. Scheer, I suspect otherwise.  I have no problem with a journalist praising a Republican who calls for an end to the illegal occupation of Iraq or slamming Democrats who fail to carry out the promise held out by the Democratic Party going into the November 2006 election to end that war.  However, going from simple praise to proposing that a Republican should be President when there are so many other issues besides the war on Iraq to consider is, in my view, an exercise in a myopic journalistic irresponsibility.

For many years prior to “Five Greatest Lies” Mr. Scheer was an outspoken critic of the Bush regime.  His columns in the Los Angeles Times, which I regularly read, were not merely factual but powerful statements when most other corporate journalists took the easy rode of simply acting as stenographers and mouthpieces for the administration.  It was Scheer’s outspoken criticism that led to the termination of his many year affiliation with the LA Times after it was acquired by the Tribune Co.  It was then that Mr. Scheer created Truthdig.  It also led me to cancel my subscription to the L.A. Times.

It is my profound belief that, in light of that experience, Mr. Scheer has, either consciously or subconsciously, wanted to continue to publish on his core topic—the war in Iraq—but that he has twice leaped at the opportunity to support Republicans based solely on their opposition to the war in Iraq.

Of course, We the People should make an end to the war an absolute litmus test as to whom we support.  But when it comes to selecting a President, considering that there are a number of other individuals—e.g., Kucinich, Gravel & Richardson, perhaps Edwards as well—who also support ending the war, there should be examination of more than the one issue before declaring our support.  Mr. Scheer’s failure to conduct a comprehensive examination of Mr. Paul before declaring his support, at least to me, was irresponsible.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, November 26, 2007 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment

Libertarianism in brief:

Ron Paul, like all libertarians, believes in helping the poor, providing for the sick, giving a hand up to someone who has had a personal tragedy.

He just believes, like all libertarians, that government, a force-wielding institution, is the last gang from which to expect true charity.

Charity at the threat of imprisonment is not charity at all: it is extortion. Let’s not pretend the extortion is not there: if you refuse to pay your taxes to support the welfare/warfare state, eventually the thugs with the guns on their hips will come to take you away.

This extortion does not suddenly become moral just because 50 percent plus one of the population voted for it.

This extortion does not become moral just because an institution we call “government” does the extorting.

The government has no mystical moral superiority that somehow makes violence moral. If it’s wrong for one person to mug another, even if the mugger gives the stolen loot to the poor, then it’s also immoral if the government does it.

Libertarianism, at its root, is simply the doctrine of non-violence applied to everyone, including (especially) the government, which has always historically been the greatest purveyor of violence.

Report this

By Ernest Canning, November 26, 2007 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Linking to LWM’s “The First National Poll” reveals why his statements cannot be relied upon.  There is no information at the cite as to how this poll was conducted, by whom, and it reflects that 20 states were left off the poll.

Here are some other polling results.  A “blind-poll” released on 8/3/07 conducted over an independent web site (later reported on by the Kucinich campaign) involved 67,000 participants.  It set forth candidate positions on issues but excluded their names.  The results were as follows:

Kucinich:  53%  (35,600)
Clinton   3.6% (2,400)
Obama     3%
Edwards   1.3%

Per the Kucinich campaign:  “When people vote exclusively on the issues…without being influenced by name recognition, celebrity or millions of dollars in advertising, Congressman Kucinich wins in a landslide…”

This is direct evidence of what Noam Chomsky refers to as the “Democracy deficit.”

Then there was the more recent DFA on-line poll that can be found at

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=pid=249126

Kucinich   31.97%
Gore     24.71%
Edwards   15.6%
Obama     13.6%
Clinton   4.21%
Richardson 4.09%
others     2.05%

Of course, this second poll only involved Democratic activists, who, one would have to concede, are generally more knowledgeable, especially when measured against the vast majority of Americans who are taken in by the propaganda network, aka corporate media.

LWM’s poll may be accurate or it may be way off, but mere focus on the polls misses the point.  We the People, on an individual basis, should not let polls determine how we vote.  Doing so reminds me of the words I had seen written on a bathroom wall at UCLA in the early seventies—“Eat sh-t!  Ten billion flies can’t all be wrong.”

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 26, 2007 at 6:35 pm Link to this comment

#116045 by Non Credo

My bad.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 26, 2007 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment

#116012 by Shenonymous

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075296/

You are right, I could care less of how many nom de guerre’s one chooses even if they all say the same thing to the exact word and phrase.  Maybe they can choose a post and have a conversation unto themself?

I must disagree with you on one point.

“That sort of says it all with regard to abortion and a woman’s right to choose”.

It doesn’t.

It is much easier to change hot button issues like this one at a state level than making it a national one, whereas a 6 term senator from Utah can block legislation which affects your abortion in your state (not Utah), however it is not fair for me, as a resident of Utah to have my federal tax dollars pay for your abortion.  That is why I believe it is a fundamental states rights issue.

Actually if left to me there wouldn’t be any 6 term senators as I believe in term limits on elected office.  Ron Paul wouldn’t go along as it isn’t outlined in the Constitution.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 26, 2007 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

1 of 6

Cyrena,

In response to your lengthy post I have tried to address most of the points that you brought up and revisited others that I didn’t spend the time to deal with in prior posts.

I wrote:
#115641
“If the airlines were allowed to arm their pilots, the attack likely wouldn’t have happened. OBL would have had to try something else.  That was the argument I put forward.
I can assure you that many airlines would have followed the model of El-Al if they weren’t PROHIBITED from doing so by the FAA.”

You wrote:
#115654
“The suggestion that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened if the pilots had been armed is downright STUPID.”

I never said it ‘wouldn’t have happened’ but I did say it ‘likely wouldn’t have happened.’ There is a nuance there but it is important. Further, I’m not sure why that is so ‘STUPID’ considering El-Al’s hijacking record (which you cited) since they took ‘extreme’ measures regarding security, which includes putting armed air marshals on every flight, having double doors etc has been 100% effective since the 1960’s.  I also assumed they had armed pilots but the Wiki cited does not specify.  What I will point out is that El-Al has 30 aircraft in the entire fleet so putting an air marshal on every flight is actually feasible particularly in a society where the government has an automatic claim on the life of every person no matter what (automatic draft).  To contrast our system with theirs, according to your colleagues over at secure-skies.org we have 6,000 aircraft and 90,000 pilots and 27,000 flights per day.  They say federal air marshals for only 5% of those flights costs $688MM annually and we would need 70,000 air marshals to put them on all flights. Yikes. 

That said, it appears I was wrong when I stated that FAA regulations prohibited airlines from following El-Al.  After reading your more recent and lengthy post I clearly oversimplified that issue and admittedly referenced something I had heard someone state without finding out for myself.  From what I can tell it appears to be a mix of the industry not wanting to do so, regulations, red tape, the overall security apparatus / system, and social and business norms etc. 

That said…
#115654 by cyrena on 11/24 at 10:22 pm….  “FAA regulations do now, always, and hopefully always will, prohibit the ‘arming’ of pilots or anybody else. There is one exception, and most commercial airline pilots aren’t comfortable with it, but generally ‘go along’.”
Are you referring to FAM’s as the one exception?  If so, can a pilot willingly deny a FAM access to their aircraft?  Do they have the authority to deny?  You would know better but it seems unlikely to me that a commercial pilot would have authority to deny.  Later in your post you said pre 9-11 they could deny OTHER types of federal officials from carrying weapons onboard but then you imply that post 9-11 they cannot. 
So just following the logic, does that indicate that there are plenty of handguns flying the friendly skies in the hands of our many federal law enforcement agents (TSA and non-TSA related) today in the post 9-11 world?

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 26, 2007 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

2 of 6
Also, what about H.R.5005 Section XIV?  That was passed in 2002 was it not?  Regarding your post, how does that legislation square with what the FAA regulations that you stated, “now, always, and hopefully always will prohibit the arming of pilots or anybody else.”? 
Perhaps the program hasn’t been as successful as the authors expected?  In fact it seems that according to the proponents of these measures at secure-skies.org, onerous regulations have kept it from becoming a practical reality.  You seem to be happy about that but the security situation according to their numbers and recent snafus at screening checkpoints suggest otherwise.
Another question I have is that you are very concerned about firearms at 30,000 feet and the risk they pose but you don’t really specify:
#115654   “…the risk of having ANY firearm in the passenger cabins, (or cockpit) is far, far, far greater than any potential threat that could ONLY be contained by shooting somebody, at 30,000 feet.”
Are you referring to an accidental discharge?  Has this ever happened with tragic results in the past couple of decades?  None are coming to my mind but maybe something like this has happened and the truth was never revealed?  How does the military deal with this discharge threat?  Don’t fighter pilots have personal sidearms which, I would guess, undergo far more extreme conditions than a pressurized commercial flight?  Maybe it has something to do with pressurized vs. non-pressurized cabins and the different risks an errant bullet would pose in each environment?  How has El-Al dealt with that risk since 1967?
So, if we can assume some significant number of guns are ‘flying around’ already, and the number of incidents of accidental discharge are very low, then what risk is “far, far, far greater than… <a >”?
Again, this is a question that assumes that there are already at least some guns flying around up there (although according to secure-skies.org not many relatively speaking).  I base that on the FAM program, FFDO program in the legislation I cited, your comment regarding the ability to allow or deny a non travel security related federal agent Pre 9-11 the ability to board the passenger craft with their service weapon and now what appears to be the lack of authority to do so post 9-11 etc.
You wrote: #115654   “Do you believe that the pilots were taken out by BOXCUTTERS? And, if the pilots had firearms, they could have whipped them out before the box-cutter wielding terrorists could get to them? Or, maybe Ron Paul could have galloped down the aisle with his own firearm to save the day?”
Like I said in my prior response and you stated in another as well, who knows what they had regarding the weapons?  But do I think that pilots behind locked, secure doors with an attacker noisily attempting to gain entry would have time to go through the proper procedures to safely arm themselves and prevent a hijacking if that assailant did gain entry to the cockpit?  I will choose to agree with the folks at secure-skies who say ‘yes’.  Beyond their recommendation and experience I obviously would not know but it sounds reasonable to me being somewhat familiar with how a commercial airliner is organized, how difficult (I hope and assume) it is to bust through a fortified door, and how simple it should be to defend a single, narrow point of entry with a firearm, with authorization to use deadly force, despite the obvious horrible consequences possible or perhaps even likely.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 26, 2007 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

3 of 6
Anyhow… back to your lengthy and more recent comment…. 

You wrote:  “Your post tells me that you’re involved in the typical behavior of those who make a career on making assumptions. I think the psychobabbalists would call it something like ‘projection’. I just call it the ignorance of making assumptions about things of which one has no knowledge.”

My impression was that you were very obviously “pro big government” and I am surprised to see you claim otherwise and get defensive as you have above.  In fact, ‘socialist’ comes to mind when I read your posts.  A fresh example of how I placed you on the political spectrum being post #115987….where you called Bill Clinton a Republican which implies, to me, that you are well left of him.  I say that since you use terms like Repuglican and seethe with disdain for anything with an R next to it.  You also seem to tune out any ideas that come from the Republican side of the aisle.  Just looking at how you position yourself to me it means that you are nowhere near being a centrist which you yourself make Bill Clinton out to be.  Therefore, I conclude far left.  Where else can you be?  Clearly my point is not to debate where Clinton stands but my point is to point out why I feel I rightly categorized you as a “pro-big government person”.  Am I ‘projecting’ on you and doing the cardinal sin of ‘assuming’ something here?  If so, pardon me for forming an opinion based on the things that you write. 

Furthermore as it relates to ‘projecting’ and ‘assuming’ I don’t think I have ever read a post that is more appallingly guilty of these very sins that you claim I am so guilty of than your recent post #115987:

“As we know, that is NOT the case with the anti-abortion folks in this country. They have no interest in providing for the health or well-being of any child born here, and THAT has been proven over and over again. They have NO concern for the huge disparities in infant mortality rates in the poorer regions of this country, and particularly the regions that are occupied primarily by people of color, who are not equipped to raise children, because they can’t necessarily even feed them, let alone house them or educate them. Women in these same areas do NOT have access to health care, (prenatal or otherwise) and yet that is of no concern to these millions who want to outlaw such a procedure. The hypocrisy involved in caring more about an unborn stranger (or pretending to) than a real live human being simply never ceases to amaze me. But, that’s what it boils down to.”

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 26, 2007 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

4 of 6
I have rarely seen a more vicious paragraph full of assumptions and projections about large swaths of unrelated people.  I understand that this is an emotional issue but let’s keep things in perspective.  Let’s at least try to lose the collectivism-inspired rants that demonize massive swaths of people that it would quite literally be impossible for you to ever know individually.  Let’s also lose the condescension.  You actually claim that you know what ‘millions’ think and why.  Therefore you also think you understand what they feel, are concerned about, do, what their religious beliefs are etc etc etc.  That is so ridiculous it is insane.  That said, we all tend to fall into this trap as human beings at times, but it seems you do this as a way of looking at the world.  Now watch me do it… As a person on the far left, collectivism is at the core of your worldview!  What is worse is that since you are certainly not alone over there on the left with the tendency to group people together and then make collectivist arguments about how to solve the world’s problems your worldview has actually historically been a massive problem for mankind (not to say that it hasn’t made any contributions because it has).  But in my personal perception of history, this is the ‘do-gooder’ syndrome that I have mentioned in an earlier post #115537 and it is dangerous for the very reason that it is ridiculous and impossible.  You don’t know shit about anyone unless you KNOW that person!

Now if I may project some more onto you (thanks I will) and assume a few more things about you… ( I will preface doing so by saying that I feel that I have at least decent odds of understanding what YOU believe and can paint a fairly accurate picture of those beliefs held only by YOU.)  I emphatically point this out so you might be inclined to contrast what I have been doing and will continue to do against your attempts to project and assume what “millions” of people think, do, feel, care about, what experiences they have had, etc etc

You appear to be a person who wants to believe she/he is literally filled with compassion for others but under the surface (not too deep either) it seems you actually harbor a tremendous amount of animosity and hatred towards “millions”.  What makes you better than those you convict of being racists who hate the poor or less fortunate right off the bat? 

You are a leftist, socialist and you think you know what is best for everyone and as a result, you want to force your ideas on everyone else.  So now you are also a fascist authoritarian.  You actually think that people who disagree with you are evil, careless, stupid, racists, misogynists, greedy, simple, most likely republican but most importantly scum.  Let’s revisit Exhibit A where you just painted “millions” with that ugly brush of yours..  Please don’t deny this.  Better, why don’t you be an adult, admit it is flawed thinking and apologize for it.  Maybe just admit that you could benefit from reexamining the way that you tend to make massive assumptions and projections about millions of people you don’t and never will know.  You have also demonstrated this behavior in other posts, including your response to mine so I do think it is something you should seriously get self-reflective about… Dismiss it as psychobabble, it isn’t.  To me it is just common sense and the requisite recognition and respect for every human being as an individual with virtues and failings unique only to them and ideas that progress and change on the continuum of experiencing one’s own life.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 26, 2007 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

5 of 6
Getting back on topic, if that is possible, I did paint you as a conspiracy theorist and that perhaps was unfair.  In fact reading what you wrote I will tell you that I agree virtually entirely with your assessment about the events that day so I admit I am skeptical as well.  Why haven’t we seen a legitimate tape from the Pentagon?  I don’t know. They did release a tape but it didn’t show anything conclusive.  Do I have a problem with that, absolutely!  That said, my response to that very assessment would be to focus on a candidate for President who has stated time and again that he desires to bring transparency back into government and Paul is the only one I believe genuinely will do so and one who won’t also dramatically expand Leviathan and bankrupt us sooner than we seemingly have to go bankrupt as a nation.  It is literally happening as we speak.

You accuse me of being an ‘all or nothing person’ which you assumed that I thought you were, which I am not either.  I have written on this very thread in a separate post how I think all of the people who think Ron Paul can somehow shut down the government overnight are completely missing the point of his candidacy.  I view him as a needed change in direction because while I am convinced that our government has become too large and too powerful and too intrusive both domestic and internationally I have no interest in shutting down social security, throwing people out on the street etc.. Furthermore, I also believe Ron Paul is honest when he says the same thing over and over ad nauseum.  I also do understand the need for regulations and protocols and rules that are required to operate complex systems.  What I am against is over regulation enacted by politicians in DC who are under the influence of special interest lobbies and groups that favor the big interests over the small.  I believe very strongly in the entrepreneur and am against the monolithic corporatists.  I am convinced that stand with Ron Paul united on that belief.  Centralized, monolithic, Federal government serves the powerful in my estimation.  All the happy talk about serving the poor is complete b.s. to draw people like you into the system, to trust the government with ever more expanding power and influence and claims over the lives and labors of individuals.  Just look at how the money is actually spent and you get an answer.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 26, 2007 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

6 of 6
It is for this very reason why I would rather pay 5-10% of my income in FEDERAL TAXES to pay for the common defense and other roles established/limited by the Constitution and then turn around and pay the other 30-40% in state and local taxes if I must.  At least in my scenario I have some modicum of influence and control over where the money is spent, I can see how it is being spent, there is accountability, and the sacrifice I am making by having my income taken from me is actually benefiting myself, my family, and my community more directly.  More importantly, the money that the government is taking IS NOT being spent running roughshod all over sovereign nations and killing innocent people in my name, with the fruits of my labor.  Now do I think that taxes across the board should be lower?  Absolutely!  I think that private groups are so much better at providing so many of our services than the FEDERAL government.  This does not mean that I want to privatize the police, fire department, shut down the public schools in my town, throw people onto the street etc etc.  I absolutely do not (neither does Ron Paul)!  But I DO like the idea of having more control over MY INCOME enabling me to voluntarily spend or give my money to those groups that I think are the most effective.  I want a voluntary choice.  Under the current system, I cannot choose not to give my income to the government and I can do next to nothing to change how inefficient, wasteful, or prone to corruption that money is.  When was the last time a government executive had to sign a statement certifying the financial reports of their department under the threat of imprisonment?  Under current regulations, every executive in the private sector is now assumed guilty.  The few bad apples are punishing the majority of what I believe are good people and the accounting firms who screwed everything up in the first place have seen records amount of new business forcing honest businesses to comply!  You probably think it is the other way around though….

Incredibly this rant is actually going to return to your post:

You wrote:  “Compare that to the incidents of 9/11, and you may be able to answer at least part of your own question about why you ‘assume’ that no US pilots have ‘done anything about’ the questions surrounding 9/11.”

I never ‘assumed’ that NO US PILOTS have done anything about the questions, I was asking if any have and specifically if you had.  Thank you for pointing that website out to me I will look at what they have to say very seriously.  I will also agree that pilots who otherwise would have spoken out would face serious job risk and when I quickly wrote that response I certainly was not considering this truth.  On reflection, in an industry already decimated by the attacks, such a move would certainly be against many individuals reasonable self-interest.  As you pointed out those who are retired have the most liberty to speak the truth and ask the hard questions which brings up another interesting divergence between what is considered to be the right and the left.

Fact, the scientists that are ‘out of the consensus’ on global warming are in the same camp as the pilots you cited questioning 9-11… They are retired and with nothing to lose in the way of grant money or scorn from their colleagues and they no longer face severe career risk for going against the consensus.  I will also point out that they also have nothing to gain from promulgating hysteria and fear that the world is going to end as a result…Just something to think about another time.

Boy am I done with this post!

Nomascerdo

No Mas Cerdo

No More Pork!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 26, 2007 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

#116011 by Ernest Canning

Actually EC, I believe the votes show Ron Paul is against federal funding of abortion issues and that these issues are better left to the states to decide and fund if they wish.  While I disagree with his position on stem cell research I am confident that a new congress with new faces can get this passed, regardless of what Ron Paul wants.

I am in whole agreement with NC’s post #115989, I support Israel’s right to exist but also the right of Palistine to exist as well.  I am angry our congress succumbs to their media stranglehold exemplified by the few posters here who allude to being the judge and jury of who is an anti-semite or not, solely based on what one posts on Israel and the jews who blindly support it. 

My message is simple cut their funding, make their lobbists register as agents of a foreign power and punish their spies when caught.

Report this

By LWM, November 26, 2007 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment

Hey, Sparky…?

Non-Credo…People like ITW and LWM and Lefty want to be hated. They need it, so they can say, “See! You hate Jews!

I’m not Jewish. I’m Scot-German (I’m thrifty, hard-headed, hard drinking, and efficient). I may be an honorary member of the Tribe of Levi; Born in NYC, father was a doctor, I was supposed to be a doctor or lawyer but I went into the music biz (you can’t get much more Jewish than that, can you?)... But I’m not Jewish. You really need to see a therapist or you will end up like Mel Gibson.

Report this

By Nabih Ammari, November 26, 2007 at 5:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ernest Canning,

Will you please check Post#115759 by Nabih Ammari on
11/25 at 12:27 pm.

I shall appreciate reading your reaction or feeling or
assumption or conclusion or re-assessment or whatever
you think it appropriate.

I think you have missed seeing the post mentioned
above because there were several registered bloggers
who were involved in some kind of rapid bickerings
and I was/am still unregistered although I submitted
two or three registration applications and I was told
that instructions would be sent to me immediately-that took place,as I recall,about three months ago.So far,I have received NOTHING.And I began
thinking of stop posting on this thread because of
lack of response from the registrar and because of the facts there is too many vulgarities,too many
names callings and too much mean-spirited and ,indeed,bickering over the shallowest disagreement.
That is not my cup of tea.
Yours Truly,
Nabih Ammari

Report this

By LWM, November 26, 2007 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

#115983 by Shenonymous on 11/26 at 1:30 pm

Actually LWM, you are quoting Cyrena.  But she expressed my sentiments precisely.

LWM regrets the error and apologizes to Cyrena and Shenonymous for the mistaken attribution and confusion.

wink

Tony… My difference with LWM is that he seems to be in the same camp as Clinton and the DLC, whereas I think we can do better. I am in agreement with EC on policy; however, like LWM, I pay more attention to the political realities. That is why I think the best bet for Kucinich supporters is to join the Obama campaign and push it to be as progressive as possible…

My number one goal is to put a Democrat in the WH. SCOTUS appointments, anyone? #2 is to stock the Congress with Dems, and take as many governorships as possible. That does tend to give one the impression I’m in line with the DLC because I’m looking at this strategically. I’m much more of a DNC type, if anything. I’m a social democrat/libertarian socialist, ferchrissake!

Report this

By cann4ing, November 26, 2007 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

Non credo.  I think you have to be careful to distinguish from Jews, which includes Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky & Norman Finkelstein and Zionism which all three oppose.  When you lump all “Jews” together you become precisely what you claim to oppose—the racist and theocratic components of Zionism.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 26, 2007 at 4:43 pm Link to this comment

PatrickHenry, of the good old boys team, you haven’t the decency to call people by their names. Who the hell is Sybil?  That name does not appear anywhere in the entire discussion.  And what is it to you who is who?  This is the Internet and no one owes anyone crap.  You all would sound a whole lot more intelligent if you just dealt with the topics of this forum.  At any rate, here are some of your statistics of the more recent vintage repeated as well as the NARAL rating of 0% indicating a pro-life voting record, and it can also be found at http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm 
For those who are interested in this hot button item please especially note the ones I’ve bracketed:
[Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)]
Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
[No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)]
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
[Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)]

That sort of says it all with regard to abortion and a woman’s right to choose.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 26, 2007 at 4:41 pm Link to this comment

Patrick Henry:  You and I are usually together on issues, but I have to question your position on this one.  There are a number of Ron Paul votes, listed by you, that reflect that he subscribes to the hard-right, fundamentalist Christian agenda on this issue, including what can only be seen as a fundamentalist opposition to expansion of stem cell research, support for a ban on so-called “partial birth” abortions—a position that would essential prevent the procedures during the second as well as third trimesters, a ban on federal funding of family planning abroad and a ban on funding of abortions here at home.  On these issues I don’t see a whole lot of distance between Ron Paul and Geo. W. Bush.

To my good friend Tony Wicher:  I have been hammering away on the superiority of Dennis Kucinich on substantive policies, a point with which you agree, noting that the core problem is that the corporate media misdirects our focus on image and away from substance, and you come back with “transformational symbolism”?  Tell me how “transformational symbolism” actually translates to a change in the support the rich at the expense of the many policies that the DLC democrats have been applying since 1992?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 26, 2007 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

Before Ron Paul is “put down” on abortion one should review his record.  He believes as I that abortion is a matter between a woman, her doctor, her priest and her insurance company.

Ron Pauls Record on abortion:

Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Now if ITW, LWM, Lefty or whoever Sybil calls herself at the moment disagrees, so what!  She is simply creating a consensus unto herself, a tactic perfected at http://www.giyus.org/ where the Internet megaphone allows a single nutjob to make it seem there are multiple nutjobs smearing, slandering and making false claims as if they were from multiple sources.  All brought to you by your friends at AIPAC and their associated lobbies.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 26, 2007 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

(Obama article, continued from below)

Still, the transformational symbolism of an Obama presidency is compelling, especially as the actual content of the foreign policy proposals of leading Democratic candidates looks similar. Among Republicans, only John McCain—admired in Europe—seems to offer real bridge-building capacity.

Clinton, Obama and John Edwards all favor closing Guantᮡmo Bay. They all want to end the Iraq war, although they differ on how fast and on what residual force to leave in the country or area. They all favor undoing unilateralism. They all back engagement with Iran, although Clinton supported the designation of the Revolutionary Guard Corps as terrorists.

Most of this would please an expectant world. But Obama, while saying he might attack “high value terrorist targets” in Pakistan, has been most forthright in sketching a globalized community—“the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people”—and pushing hope over fear.

I see nobody else who would represent such a Kennedy-like restorative charge at a time when America often seems out of sync with the world.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the former British ambassador to the United Nations, told me that the United States remained the most important nation, but “the American label feels tied to something anachronistic. America has not been working out where the world is going, nor creating the appropriate relationships for that world.”

Obama, in many ways, is where the world is going. He embodies interconnectedness where the Bush administration has projected separateness.

Andrew Sullivan, in a fine piece in The Atlantic, imagines a Pakistani Muslim seeing on television a man “who attended a majority-Muslim school” and is “now the alleged enemy.”

He notes: “If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close.”

The world isn’t voting. America is. But the candidate who most mirrors the 21st-century world seems clear enough.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 26, 2007 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

#115966 by Inherit The Wind on 11/26 at 11:44 am

Hey, ITW - I just wanted to say that when I read the posts of NC and PH deciding that you were LWM, my immediate response was, “I know ITW. ITW is a friend of mine. LWM is no ITW.”

PH and NC, I like you guys, and I often agree with you, but I do think you are both a bit on the paranoid side. This does make you vulnerable to anti-Semitism, and you should take to heart some of LWM’s posts about this, if you won’t take it from me.

My difference with LWM is that he seems to be in the same camp as Clinton and the DLC, whereas I think we can do better. I am in agreement with EC on policy;  however, like LWM, I pay more attention to the political realities. That is why I think the best bet for Kucinich supporters is to join the Obama campaign and push it to be as progressive as possible Here is a recent article about Obama:

Obama in Orbit

By ROGER COHEN

NEW YORK

Little that is certain can be said about the U.S. election a year from now, but one certainty is this: about 6.3 billion people will not be voting even if they will be affected by the outcome.

That’s the approximate world population outside the United States. If nothing else, President Bush has reminded them that it’s hard to get out of the way of U.S. power. The wielding of it, as in Iraq, has whirlwind effects. The withholding of it, as on the environment, has a huge impact.

No wonder the view is increasingly heard that everyone merits a ballot on Nov. 4, 2008.

That won’t happen, of course. Even the most open-armed multilateralist is not ready for hanging chads in Chad. But the broader point of the give-us-a-vote itch must be taken: the global community is ever more linked. American exceptionalism, as practiced by Bush, has created a longing for new American engagement.

Renewal is about policy; it’s also about symbolism. Which brings us to Barack Hussein Obama, the Democratic candidate with a Kenyan father, a Kansan mother, an Indonesian stepfather, a childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia and impressionable experience of the Muslim world.

If the globe can’t vote next November, it can find itself in Obama. Troubled by the violent chasm between the West and the Islamic world? Obama seems to bridge it. Disturbed by the gulf between rich and poor that globalization spurs? Obama, the African-American, gets it: the South Side of Chicago is the South Side of the world.

Michael Ignatieff, the deputy leader of Canada’s opposition Liberal Party, said: “Outsiders know it’s your choice. Still, they are following this election with passionate interest. And it’s clear Barack Obama would be the first globalized American leader, the first leader in whom internationalism would not be a credo, it would be in his veins.”

To the south, in Mexico, resentment of the Bush administration has less to do with American unilateralism and more with stalled immigration policy and the building of a border fence. But the thirst for change is the same.

“Mexicans want evidence that things are shifting, which means the Democrats, and of course a woman like Hillary Clinton, or a black like Obama, would signal a huge cultural change,” said Jorge Casta��, a former foreign minister.

“My sense is the symbolism in Mexico of a dark-skinned American president would be enormous. We’ve got female leaders now in Latin America—in Chile, in Argentina. But the idea of a U.S. leader who looks the way the world looks as seen from Mexico is revolutionary.”

Of course, Mexicans aren’t electing the president. Nor are Canadians, even if Michael Moore thinks they should. The America of the global imagination is not that of red-state reality, a disconnect that has spawned a million misunderstandings.

(continued above)

Report this

By cyrena, November 26, 2007 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

#115950 by Shenonymous

•  What is incredibly interesting is that our government is unable to provide any recent statistics, even up as late as 2005.  I’ve contacted the Justice Department.

Shenonymous,
Good luck with that. (on contacting the Justice Department that is). I didn’t even know we still HAD a Justice Department.

•  #115964 by antispin on 11/26 at 11:22 am

Jaki is right: if Paul rejects the rights of women then shit-can his candidacy and drop it off the end of pier.  Too bad - it would great to be able to support a Republican.

Antispin,
Do we HAVE to? (support a Republican?) It wouldn’t be great. Nope…it wouldn’t be great at all. (well, I suppose I could accept one like Big Willie Clinton, since I have to agree with LWM on that. He was the best Republican we’ve ever had, even though he was a democrat).

Now that should manage to piss off a lot of folks. The Clinton haters, (many of them around) and the Clinton lovers, who would be just as annoyed with me for calling him a Republican. Still, he was as close to the center as any Dem I’ve ever known, but probably still way to far to the left for the average repug.

Anyway…nope, nope, nope. No need to wish for a repug to support, at least not for the next few decades. By then, maybe these neo-conners will have died off.

#115933 by bobadi
Bobadi,
I believe there are many folks here who would agree with you on the all important issue of the ecology, and changing our personal lifestyles to the advantage of improving both the ecology and our way of life. So, I don’t know that it’s a question of whether or not the Greens are ‘sexy’ enough. Matter of fact, Dennis Kucinich doesn’t come across as ‘sexy’. (at least not to me). But, I do like him, and as far as I know, he’s just as much in favor of supporting our environment as any other Green person.

I’ve not yet heard anything of the sort from Congressman Paul, though admittedly, I don’t listen to much from him. And, he’s DEFINITELY –not- sexy!! And, to make matters even worse, some of his foolish supporters have chosen to paste/tape pieces of paper in every square inch of my own neighborhood, with his name plastered across them. (looks like standard white printer paper, and it’s EVERYWHERE) No telling how many trees died for that. We look like graffiti city around here. Where’s the clean-up crew?

Report this

Page 3 of 7 pages  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook