Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have said here some of the things Posner says, but not as well.

Yes, ironically you were number 19 on my short-list. But for Posner, you coulda been a contender.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


The hour is late........ Good night.

The liberals' stamina is questionable........no wonder you guys are so willing to cut and run in Iraq and leave the fate of tens of millions to the hands of fanatical oppressors.

FDR at Yalta-style.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Does Hillary have property in Cuba?

She did claim the Children of america as "Her own special" mission, then she turned around and had one young boy snatched out of sunny florida and delivered into Cuba. Surely you are familar with the Catholic dogma that one owns the fruits of one's sins?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Spanky, the democrats and their liberal cohorts count a racist oppressor, Bobby Byrd*, as their conscience. Is it any wonder they think Castro is a heroic figure?

*DEMOCRAT Sen. bobby Byrd, once said (in response to the issue of integrating the military), "I would never fight with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Castro is the minour leagues compared with that guy, a Democrat.

I think Ty's pont will be that whatever Byrd says is fine, because he has support in his home state.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
Is there anyone on this board that agrees with this?

"The system is highly flawed, but to say Castro is an illegitimate despot is patently ridiculous."

I'd call him a despot, but I don't know WTF illegitimate means in the context of the statement. Yeh, he grabbed power in a revolution. But that doesn't make him illegitimate. If it did, you could say Musharraf and the govt of Romania are also illegitimate. I'd call Castro a man who rose to power on a legitimate basis and then became a criminal dictator.

I think your definition of illegitimate is anyone who comes to power by overthrowing a US-friendly govt or who espouses a government which we do not like.

BTW, we're not "legitimate" rulers of Iraq. If you buy the pitch that we're "liberators," then what we did is exactly the same as what Castro did. He saw abject poverty and wealth disparity and "liberated" his people. Just like we think democracy is a perfect system which will liberate everyone, he thought Communism was the answer.

Now, wait... before you reply. Let me guess what you'll say. Oh, yes. "Democracy is freedom for all, and true liberation, while Communism is inherently evil and persecutes its subjeccts." Wrong. They're both just poli-societal systems. One seems to work better than the other, but both are designed and intended to make the best living conditions for the people living under them. That Communism hasn't turned out to be quite as successful in making its subjects happy as Democracy has been doesn't mean it is inherently evil.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think Ty's pont will be that whatever Byrd says is fine, because he has support in his home state.

FWIW, this is why I never PM Ty anymore.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'd call him a despot, but I don't know WTF illegitimate means in the context of the statement. Yeh, he grabbed power in a revolution. But that doesn't make him illegitimate. If it did, you could say Musharraf and the govt of Romania are also illegitimate. I'd call Castro a man who rose to power on a legitimate basis and then became a criminal dictator.

I think your definition of illegitimate is anyone who comes to power by overthrowing a US-friendly govt or who espouses a government which we do not like.

BTW, we're not "legitimate" rulers of Iraq. If you buy the pitch that we're "liberators," then what we did is exactly the same as what Castro did. He saw abject poverty and wealth disparity and "liberated" his people. Just like we think democracy is a perfect system which will liberate everyone, he thought Communism was the answer.

Now, wait... before you reply. Let me guess what you'll say. Oh, yes. "Democracy is freedom for all, and true liberation, while Communism is inherently evil and persecutes its subjeccts." Wrong. They're both just poli-societal systems. One seems to work better than the other, but both are designed and intended to make the best living conditions for the people living under them. That Communism hasn't turned out to be quite as successful in making its subjects happy as Democracy has been doesn't mean it is inherently evil.

I'd like to see if you have the immoral weakness of bad character to look Elian in the face and feed him that gobbledeegook. Who is watering down your libations with the cheap liberal kool-aide?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
By definition if you did not support our invasion of Iraq you felt it was better to leave Saddam there. Therefore you supported keeping Saddam in power. You may have wanted Saddam to step down without our involvement, but your position was that we should leave Saddam in power.

Have you ever taken a political geography class? You seem to think the US has the right - no, the obligation - to act as a star chamber, deciding for the world which despots and dictators get to stay in power.

Its unfashionable these days, but there is a thhing called international law. You seem to think we can act like a schoolyard bully and run some sort of Global Manifest Destiny policy (which is the Neocon's entire platform).*

We are not the World's policemen. We can't just destroy whatever doesn't appeal to our moral tastes. Your belief that we have a moral right to blow out states all over the place because they oppress their people is a modern repackaging of the Crusaders' mentality. I'm sure many European nations look at our system as persecuting millions of poor US citizens. If they were bigger than us, would they have the right to attack us to "liberate" us? Of course not.

You're totally ignoring international law. If we chuck the sovereignty of states, even a state run by a tin pot despot like Hussein, then we're saying "There is no intl law except 'might makes right.'" You do that and you're basically rolling back civilization a few hundred years.

*The neocons are not brilliant at all. Bill Kristol and Perle are uncreative hacks. A fucking four year old could come up with the idea of Global manifest Destiny. And a ten year old who studied Roman and British history for half a day could explain why such a policy is hopelessly naive and idiotic.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I'd like to see if you have the immoral weakness of bad character to look Elian in the face and feed him that gobbledeegook. Who is watering down your libations with the cheap liberal kool-aide?

Most of your shtick is offering the heart wrenhcing exception to the rule. I'd like to live in your world. It must be interesting to see how you'd make macro policies based on micro concerns.

Sorry, Penske. Intl law is not predicated on the concerns of what might happen to one five year old kid someday. Sounds cruel, but its a big world we live in...

But you know this already. Your Elian claptrap is just more of your "be absurd" shtick.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
FWIW, this is why I never PM Ty anymore.

How can Ty claim to be the legitimate moderator here? Does he have popular support? I admit he "keeps the trains running on time," but at what cost?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield


Sorry, Penske. Intl law is not predicated on the concerns of what might happen to one five year old kid someday. ...
.

When you use the words "might" and "someday" what do you mean?

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield ...

But you know this already. Your Elian claptrap is just more of your "be absurd" shtick.

I rarely get invited to social events, but this past weekend I went to a cocktail party, sts, iyw. I preceded to harass the liberal riff raff in attendance mercilessly. The common thread I found amongst them......fetid body odour (albeit wafting off of one comely european lass it was a bit of a turn-on, iyw).

But I am curious (yellow), why the lack of hygiene amongst the dems and libs? Conserving water?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
no wonder you guys are so willing to cut and run in Iraq

Speaking of which, I thought this was really well put:

• Who's Paying for our Patriotism?
  Uwe Reinhardt
  President Bush assures us that the ongoing twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are worth the sacrifices they entail. Editorialists around the nation agree and say that a steadfast American public was willing to stay the course. Should anyone be surprised by this national resolve, given that these wars visit no sacrifice of any sort -- neither blood nor angst nor taxes -- on well over 95 percent of the American people?
  
  At most, 500,000 American troops are at risk of being deployed to these war theaters at some time. Assume that for each of them some 20 members of the wider family sweat with fear when they hear that a helicopter crashed in Afghanistan or that X number of soldiers or Marines were killed or seriously wounded in Iraq. It implies that no more than 10 million Americans have any real emotional connection to these wars.
  
  The administration and Congress have gone to extraordinary lengths to insulate voters from the money cost of the wars -- to the point even of excluding outlays for them from the regular budget process. Furthermore, they have financed the wars not with taxes but by borrowing abroad. The strategic shielding of most voters from any emotional or financial sacrifice for these wars cannot but trigger the analogue of what is called "moral hazard"... if all but a handful of Americans are completely insulated against the emotional -- and financial -- cost of war, is it not natural to suspect moral hazard will be at work in that context as well?
  
  A policymaking elite whose families and purses are shielded from the sacrifices war entails may rush into it hastily and ill prepared, as surely was the case of the Iraq war. Moral hazard in this context can explain why a nation that once built a Liberty Ship every two weeks and thousands of newly designed airplanes in the span of a few years now takes years merely to properly arm and armor its troops with conventional equipment. Moral hazard can explain why, in wartime, the TV anchors on the morning and evening shows barely make time to report on the wars, lest the reports displace the silly banter with which they seek to humor their viewers. Do they ever wonder how military families with loved ones in the fray might feel after hearing ever so briefly of mayhem in Iraq or Afghanistan?
  
  Moral hazard also can explain why the general public is so noticeably indifferent to the plight of our troops and their families. To be sure, we paste cheap magnetic ribbons on our cars.... But... we allow families of reservists and National Guard members to slide into deep financial distress as their loved ones stand tall for us on lethal battlefields and the family is deprived of these troops' typically higher civilian salaries. We offer a pittance in disability pay to seriously wounded soldiers who have not served the full 20 years that entitles them to a regular pension. And our legislative representatives make a disgraceful spectacle of themselves bickering over a mere $1 billion or so in added health care spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs -- in a nation with a $13 trillion economy!
  
  Last year kind-hearted folks in New Jersey collected $12,000 at a pancake feed to help stock pantries for financially hard-pressed families of the National Guard. Food pantries for American military families? The state of Illinois now allows taxpayers to donate their tax refunds to such families. For the entire year 2004, slightly more than $400,000 was collected in this way, or 3 cents per capita. It is the equivalent of about 100,000 cups of Starbucks coffee. With a similar program Rhode Island collected about 1 cent per capita. Is this what we mean by "supporting our troops"?
  
  When our son, then a recent Princeton graduate, decided to join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him thus: "Do what you must, but be advised that, flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded." The intervening years have not changed my views; they have reaffirmed them.
  
  Unlike the editors of the nation's newspapers, I am not at all impressed by people who resolve to have others stay the course in Iraq and in Afghanistan. At zero sacrifice, who would not have that resolve?

etfl -- t.s.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
FWIW, this is why I never PM Ty anymore.

Let me assure you that I have very little support in West Virginia. Apart from the parents of an ex-girlfriend who live in Wheeling -- they always liked me, and probably still do -- that's about it for the state.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Speaking of which, I thought this was really well put:

• Who's Paying for our Patriotism?
  Uwe Reinhardt
  President Bush assures us that the ongoing twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are worth the sacrifices they entail. Editorialists around the nation agree and say that a steadfast American public was willing to stay the course. Should anyone be surprised by this national resolve, given that these wars visit no sacrifice of any sort -- neither blood nor angst nor taxes -- on well over 95 percent of the American people?
  
  At most, 500,000 American troops are at risk of being deployed to these war theaters at some time. Assume that for each of them some 20 members of the wider family sweat with fear when they hear that a helicopter crashed in Afghanistan or that X number of soldiers or Marines were killed or seriously wounded in Iraq. It implies that no more than 10 million Americans have any real emotional connection to these wars.
  
  The administration and Congress have gone to extraordinary lengths to insulate voters from the money cost of the wars -- to the point even of excluding outlays for them from the regular budget process. Furthermore, they have financed the wars not with taxes but by borrowing abroad. The strategic shielding of most voters from any emotional or financial sacrifice for these wars cannot but trigger the analogue of what is called "moral hazard"... if all but a handful of Americans are completely insulated against the emotional -- and financial -- cost of war, is it not natural to suspect moral hazard will be at work in that context as well?
  
  A policymaking elite whose families and purses are shielded from the sacrifices war entails may rush into it hastily and ill prepared, as surely was the case of the Iraq war. Moral hazard in this context can explain why a nation that once built a Liberty Ship every two weeks and thousands of newly designed airplanes in the span of a few years now takes years merely to properly arm and armor its troops with conventional equipment. Moral hazard can explain why, in wartime, the TV anchors on the morning and evening shows barely make time to report on the wars, lest the reports displace the silly banter with which they seek to humor their viewers. Do they ever wonder how military families with loved ones in the fray might feel after hearing ever so briefly of mayhem in Iraq or Afghanistan?
  
  Moral hazard also can explain why the general public is so noticeably indifferent to the plight of our troops and their families. To be sure, we paste cheap magnetic ribbons on our cars.... But... we allow families of reservists and National Guard members to slide into deep financial distress as their loved ones stand tall for us on lethal battlefields and the family is deprived of these troops' typically higher civilian salaries. We offer a pittance in disability pay to seriously wounded soldiers who have not served the full 20 years that entitles them to a regular pension. And our legislative representatives make a disgraceful spectacle of themselves bickering over a mere $1 billion or so in added health care spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs -- in a nation with a $13 trillion economy!
  
  Last year kind-hearted folks in New Jersey collected $12,000 at a pancake feed to help stock pantries for financially hard-pressed families of the National Guard. Food pantries for American military families? The state of Illinois now allows taxpayers to donate their tax refunds to such families. For the entire year 2004, slightly more than $400,000 was collected in this way, or 3 cents per capita. It is the equivalent of about 100,000 cups of Starbucks coffee. With a similar program Rhode Island collected about 1 cent per capita. Is this what we mean by "supporting our troops"?
  
  When our son, then a recent Princeton graduate, decided to join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him thus: "Do what you must, but be advised that, flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded." The intervening years have not changed my views; they have reaffirmed them.
  
  Unlike the editors of the nation's newspapers, I am not at all impressed by people who resolve to have others stay the course in Iraq and in Afghanistan. At zero sacrifice, who would not have that resolve?

Oh Ty, your link was to something else where America was very very wrong, not the one you quoted. Since basically everything we've ever done is wrong, how can you still muster outrage today?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Is there anyone on this board that agrees with this?

"The system is highly flawed, but to say Castro is an illegitimate despot is patently ridiculous."

I wanna play.

Is there anyone on the board that agrees with this?

Originally posted by Spanky
I think we give Castro six months to call free elections. If he does not we invade. No reason not to.