Peace Protestors, more screaming fits

[Partisan Ranger]

That 'gap widening between rich and poor' is Marxist class envy BS. If that's true, then I should still be stuck at the bottom of the ladder as I was right out of college, earning about 12K per year. Funny, but 12 years later, my wife and I togehter are in the top 10% of households in the U.S. in income. Nowhere on earth is it easier to rise from the bottom to at least the middle class than here, if you do these things:

1. Stay in school, get decent grades
2. Work hard
3. Don't have children you can't afford to raise
4. Stay off drugs and alcohol
5. Avoid criminal activity

If you do all of these things, odds are you will make it to at least middle class in your life, and probably upper middle class.

PS. My wife is Russian and arrived in the US 6 years ago. She earned $3/hr plus commission in her first job in the US and didn't speak much English. Today, after 3 years of education and 5 jobs, she is making more than I do, about 75K in her first year out of school.

 

[RevDisk]

This thread might have drifted a bit. To keep it gun-related, the ATF is still doing legally questionable searches on citizens.

http://www.new-world-economy.info/ftbragg.htm

The part I loved the best is when a woman refused her consent to a search, the police merely continued with the justification of "M'am, we have to check for weapons because of the security threat".

Papers, please.


I may or may not agree with the protesters. However, they had a fully legal protest on open public property. They walked down a road to a park. Why exactly was the BATFE there searching protesters? I wonder if the "Est ist verboten!" list applied to people with concealed carry permits.

 

[roo_ster]

ceetee wrote:

Why is it so hard to separate the soldiers from the war?

The vast majority of the soldiers support their objective. To not support their objective is to not support them.

It would be nice if the protesters were honest and stop with the ritualistic, "I support the troops, BUT..."

ceetee wrote:

For what it's worth, Congress never gave him the authority to attack anybody.

Yes they did. And the Dems squealed like stuck pigs when they were put on the spot. It is revisionist, Kerry-esque history to argue otherwise. Read the text as if the words mean something, not like a lefty law professor reading his copy of the Living Super-Elastic Constitution.

ceetee wrote:

Christofacism being promulgated by these neocons is any better than your "Islamofacism"?

Get with the program...the neocons are all those stinking, child-blood-drinking, Israel-loving, Jooooooz!

 

[ceetee]

For PeeAre and AyZee:

First and foremost, do you even know what you mean by "Marxism"? Nowhere in any of my posts have I, or will I ever espouse Marxism, Leninism, or Stalinism. I'd avise you do a little research, before you accuse me of that. You remind me of the Republicans that hold dear the idea that anybody with a contrary viewpoint is un-American, and aiding the terrs. That kind of thinking is the most un-American tripe I've ever heard on C-span!

The following information comes from The "Restoring America" website

You should easily be able to pick out my comments from the rest of the quote:

"These nine rules were seized in a raid in Dusseldorf Germany, in 1919. The files were marked, "Communist Rules for Revolution".

Corrupt the young: get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness Like using the CIA to import massive quantities of cocaine into the country safely, and cutting the budgets for things like school arts and music programs. Like eliminating headstart budgets, and taking funding away from "No Child Left Behind".

Get control of all means of publicity. Like illegally paying propagandists to promote government policy.Get peoples' minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books, plays and other trivialitiesLike Janet Jackson's boobs....

Divide people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance Like "Islamofascism", Terry Schiavo, and Bill Clinton's love life..

Destroy the peoples' faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and . (speak against, condemnatory utterances) Again, like Bill Clinton's love life. Like saying "Democrats", and John "SKERRY". Like saying "Billary" and "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my..."

Always preach true democracy; but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. Like using only voting machines that can be easily hacked, buying them from staunch Republican supporters, and ensuring that there will never be any way to verify that the votes counted were the same as the votes actually cast.

By encouraging government extravagance, destroy its credit; produce fear of inflation, rising prices and general discontent. Like spending billions on an unneccesary war while simultaneously cutting taxes on only the wealthy. Like ensuring that any corporation that can afford to have an overseas mail drop as it's headquarters pays absolutely zero dollars in taxes. Like ensuring that the price of gasoline gets raised by 100%, the price of nearly everything else gets raised by abour 30%, but the average wage gets raised by about 6%. By giving the right to work to any illegal immigrants that can make it across our borders while remaining steadfast in your refusal to strengthen those same borders.

Foment strikes in vital industriesLike air traffic controllers, and teamsters, for instance; encourage civil disorders like having armored riot police fire unprovoked on peaceful demonstrators and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward these disorders saying that the protestors "deserved it," or were "just in the wrong place at the wrong time". Like setting up special "protest areas" behind barbed wire, blocks away from the event that's being protested. Like demanding that attendees to political rallies sign a "loyalty pledge"...
By special argument cause a breakdown of the old moral virtues hence the very term "neocon" ("new" conservative); honesty lying to Congress, and your constituency, sobriety public drunkenness, DUI, and use of hard drugs, continence, faith in the pledged word like promising the Kurds that you'll help them in any uprising, then abandoning them. Like going AWOL from the service of your own country, ruggedness.
Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext with a view of confiscation of them and leaving the population helpless and the Republicans are no better on this mark than the Democrats.

- - from Set Up and Sold Out, by Holly Swanson, published by C.I.N. Publishing

Seems to me that I can see who the true Marxists are...

 

[ceetee]

For jfruser: Of the few soldiers and Marines that I've spoken to personally, that have actually been in the Middle East, they seem to be split. Some see the job they're doing as vital to world peace. Most, though, simply see it as going where they're sent, and doing their job. It makes no difference to them if they do their work in Iraq, Iran, Somalia, or wherever. They are professionals, and they'll do their jobs wherever they are told, in a superb fashion.

I do support the troops. I also wish they had never been sent in harms way based on fabricated "evidence" and outright lies. At this time, though, we have no choice but to see things through. Our leaders have taken any freedom of coice away from us.

As for Congress authorizing the war... I have read it. Have you? In somewhat less-than-plain English, it tells Bush to enforce the UN Resolutions. We've been through this before, in this very thread. You should read it yourself... go past all those "whereas" remarks this time.

As for the last sentence of your post, I'm not quite sure what you mean. It could be that you're a hard-core racist. It could also be that you're just stupid. I have no way of knowing which. I would remark, though, that such language has no place on The High Road, and I hope Art's Grandmaw spanks you good and proper...

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

PS. My wife is Russian and arrived in the US 6 years ago. She earned $3/hr plus commission in her first job in the US and didn't speak much English. Today, after 3 years of education and 5 jobs, she is making more than I do, about 75K in her first year out of school

Does she have a sister?

 

[AZLibertarian]

Ceetee,
I was enjoying the discussion with you, but right after you drifted into "Christofacism", it appears the tinfoil is wrapped a bit too tight for me to want to continue.

I'm outta here.

 

[10shooter]

"These nine rules were seized in a raid in Dusseldorf Germany, in 1919. The files were marked, "Communist Rules for Revolution".
How could I have been so blind, this explains it all. The USSR infiltrated the CIA and the Republican party to take over the world. No its a little weak, granted the CIA has been behind some of the most vile plots since they started the Spanish Inquisition. I'm hearing too many conspiracy plots. I personnal believe that with over 300 million people in the US and each committed from none to a few core ideas/groups scattered in a colorful array, that a secret plot spinning for control through careful guile and propaganda is not happening.
I have a set of values as does each person. These values merge with political, social and religious groups. These groups in larger collections form social norms. As far as the US being Fascist because it uses propaganda or information outlets to spead unpopular ideas, thats a stretch. All political parties, governments, religions and most large companies use an information/propaganda wing to get out their message, popular with some unpopular with those who disagree but this does not make them all Fascist. If they didn't advertise their messege then they would be another secret society.
Corrupt the young, thats the medias job. The Right has been fussing about that for years without CIA cocaine.
Divide the people into hostile groups, well thats the medias job through their special interest.
Destroy the peoples faith in natural leaders, get the CIA out of the media.
If I give these plots some credit then I know that Clinton's administration, Bush's administration, the French government, the British government, the Russian government and the U.N. all controlled by the CIA lied about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. And what happened to all those 700+ tonnes of nerve agents that he had when he was gassing the Kurds and Iranians were they all used up and how were they produced in the first place.
If Bush is engaging in an illegal war why has no judge issued an injuction.
When ones side is becoming morally bankrupt remember blame it on the other side.
Warning these are only the views of a young naive person.

 

[GoRon]

Ceetee

Wow, that was a doozy of a post. Thought I wandered into the DU on accident.

I think you give the republicans and the "right wing" too much credit. You make them sound like organizational geniuses manipulating all of society to their Machiavelian schemes.

I think they are all statists and the republicans aren't as bad as the dems.

l8tr

 

[ceetee]

Originally postd by GoRon

Wow, that was a doozy of a post.

Thanks! I tried hard to make it one!

(Firmly wadding tinfoil up into a tiny ball and tossing it into the trash can)

With all that nonsense, I was trying to make a point (All right... so it was a bit subtle...)

These guys started throwing around accusations like "Marxist BS". It shows that they have no real idea of what Marxism is. If you actually look hard at some of the actions taken by the American conservatives within the last thirty years or so, it's real easy to describe them as Marxist, Socialist, or even (shudder) Communist.

As of this point in time, I do not think that there's any vast conspiracy by any one small group to "take over the world". I do, however, believe that the agenda being acted out by the current bunch being called "neocons" is harmful to the rank and file citizenry of the United States. Look at all the things in the news today, being backed by the Republicans... How much of it could qualify as "bread and circuses"? How does spending billions on a war (we never needed to fight) help Iowa farmers? Or Colorado cattlemen? How could the Terry Schiavo case possibly have any impact on easing up the cost of living for Americans in Montana? Since George Dubya was elected, the cost of nearly everything has skyrocketed, while the average American's earnings have only increased marginally, at best.

Partisan Ranger made an excellant point a short while ago: America is still a land of fabulous opportunities. If you work hard, and can excel at learning, and putting that knowledge to use, the sky's practically the limit. Unfortunately, not all Americans have the ability to graduate from college. Not all Americans have the skills to learn how to excel. Not all Americans can be high-paid businessmen... When's the last time you passed by a minimum-wage-earning security guard and asked yourself, "Now why's that healthy fifty-year-old man not earning $75K a year in business?"

Nah.

You just accept the fact that he's risen to the height of his abilities, and that's that. It's the same for the supermarket checkout girls, and those guys that stand by the road holding up the "Slow" sign, while the paving crew gets on about their business.

Not everybody is Donald Trump. I feel our nation has an obligation to see to it that every working person can earn (at the least) a living wage. I'm not talking about vacationing on the Riviera, I'm just talking about living decently. Good food in the fridge, and basic medical care taken care of. No child should go to bed hungry, and no parent, either. Gasoline should not cost what it does, and if the cost gets too high, we should provide some kick-ass incentives to develop and use alternate fuels (and end our dependence on OPEC once and for all).

Our country should be investing the lion's share of it's resources in her people, not in her corporations. Corporations should be held accountable for all the rivers, lakes, and fields they've ruined with pollution. The bottom line is, everytime our employees in the government make a decision, the main consideration should be "How is this going to help our grandchildren?" Not "How is this going to help Halliburton stockholders?"

Getting back on the topic of this thread, they're a lot of folks out there that agree with some of these things. Some of them believe strongly enough to take to the streets, and voice their opinions loudly enough for their neighbors to hear. Vocal criticism of our leaders is in the finest spirit of American tradition. If our forefathers had never criticized King George's policies, we'd still be having tea, instead of coffee. The conservatives currently in power have acted many times to stifle that freedom of speech, and IMO they need to be stopped.

PS... 10shooter , you don't sound nearly as naive as you make yourself out to be...

 

[Art Eatman]

"I feel our nation has an obligation to see to it that every working person can earn (at the least) a living wage. I'm not talking about vacationing on the Riviera, I'm just talking about living decently. Good food in the fridge, and basic medical care taken care of. No child should go to bed hungry, and no parent, either."

Nope. Not at all. The obligation is to see that the system enables people to provide all this for themselves. There should be no institutional reasons against their achieving this condition. That's the end of "obligation".

If our society as a whole supports using public monies for such purposes, that's a different matter than governmental obligations.

Note that most people in a position of "need" got there on their own. They have life histories of poor decision making, avoiding getting an education to the upper limit of their abilities, and coupled with not acquiring remunerative skills. Add to this the modern American penchant for "instant gratification" of trivial desires insofar as spending habits, et voila! You have people in financial trouble.

As long as there are few penalties for excessive debt and slovenly lifestyles, we're gonna have some amount of "poverty-stricken" and/or "under-employed".

"Gasoline should not cost what it does..."

Why not? And how is the cost of gasoline any of government's business? The demand for petroleum and petroleum products is headed toward being greater than the supply capability--at least for the near term and the immediate future. That's merely Economics 101.

In constant-dollar terms, oil would have to reach $80/bbl before the price exceeds past records.

"...and if the cost gets too high, we should provide some kick-ass incentives to develop and use alternate fuels (and end our dependence on OPEC once and for all)."

No disagreement from me, although I note that R&D costs for such are tax-deductible items. Some of our problems in this entire energy arena are emotional and political, not technical: Nuclear power is the best example.

IMO, the days of cheap energy are pretty much done. We're entering a time where the rising price of crude makes conversion of tar sands, natural gas, coal and oil-shale profitable. Essentially, gasoline at $3/gallon means an unlimited supply.

Art

 

[ceetee]

Originally posted by Art:

The obligation is to see that the system enables people to provide all this for themselves. There should be no institutional reasons against their achieving this condition.

My point exactly. People are already getting welfare, and unemployment; whay aren't they working for it? Any person who gets a government check should be required to put in a substantial, verified number of hours performing some kind of labor for the public good. I don't care if it's picking up litter by the roadside, or cleaning out high school bathrooms... No workee, no checkee... And when people get tired of working for less than minimum wage, for that government check, they'll have a greater incentive to get a real job. At least they will if Bush hasn't given that job away to a Mexican national.

Note that most people in a position of "need" got there on their own. They have life histories of poor decision making, avoiding getting an education to the upper limit of their abilities, and coupled with not acquiring remunerative skills.

Again... my point exactly! (Or, to paraphrase a buddy of mine, "This ain't rocket science, and they ain't rocket scientists. It they were, they'd be...ummm.... rocket scientists!")

Some people try and try and can never achieve what you can do while asleep. Some people just never try. Whatever. Make 'em work, or make 'em go hungry. Eventually, they'll get caught being boneheads and go to prison, but that's their choice.

As long as the government is creating a limit on the supply of petroleum products reaching the States, there will be a falsely inflated value. True, some of that supply went to increased demand in Asia, but I feel our biggest problems stem from the military actions using up huge amounts of oil, while simultaneously cutting off production from Iraq, and giving the rest of the Arab world plenty of reasons to give the US the high, hard one...

I'd like to know, Art, where you got that $80 figure from.

 

[roo_ster]

ceetee wrote:

As for the last sentence of your post, I'm not quite sure what you mean. It could be that you're a hard-core racist. It could also be that you're just stupid. I have no way of knowing which. I would remark, though, that such language has no place on The High Road, and I hope Art's Grandmaw spanks you good and proper...

I think Art's Grammaw has a grasp of the following term:
Merriam-Webster entry for "Sarcasm"

Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>
synonym see WIT

ceetee wrote:

As for Congress authorizing the war... I have read it. Have you? In somewhat less-than-plain English, it tells Bush to enforce the UN Resolutions. We've been through this before, in this very thread. You should read it yourself... go past all those "whereas" remarks this time.

I am reminded of a bit of dialog from the movie, The Princess Bride:

Vizzini: ...INCONCEIVABLE!
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yep, I have read it. It is pretty plain:
Sec 2 gives support for US diplomatic efforts & Sec 3 give GWB the authority to use force if he deems it necessary to do so. One is not contingent on the other.

This is not just my interpretation of some arcane document. It is what everybody who read it at the time knew it meant:

Lefty Move-On Wannabes & Dems Angry at Kerry for Voting for the Resolution

Angry Anti-War Activists

Teddy Kennedy, Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, John Kerry and Russ Feingold
Excerpt:

...they said the congressional resolution the president proposed was far too broad.

For instance, Sarbanes said, it would authorize force against Iraq for refusing to return Kuwaiti prisoners held since the Persian Gulf War in 1990-91.

Kerry told Powell "you are asking for blanket authority" and Feingold said "we are hearing shifting justifications for using force in Iraq."

"Blanket authority"....Hmmmm

Yet another contemporaneous source yanked out of the old memory hole
With these gems:

Other Democrats coming out the meeting said there was a lot of concern that the language was too broad, particularly the last line of the draft resolution, which says that "force" should be used against "the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."

That line, say some members of Congress, is too vague and could allow the president to use force in other Mideast nations beyond Iraq.

"I think clearly there's been movement that we wanted [at the U.N.]," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois. "Now the president sends to Congress this challenge, which basically says, ignore the United Nations, the United States is going to do this alone. I think it's the wrong way to go."

The second-ranking Democrat in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, said she would not support the resolution in its current form -- in part because of its unilateral approach, she said

And, just in case there was any question...here is a text version , sans the "whereases":

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’’.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS.—The President shall, at least once every 60 days,
submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint
resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of
authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts
that are expected to be required after such actions are completed,
including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT.—To the extent that the
submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with
the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this
joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress
pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution
(Public Law 93–148), all such reports may be submitted as
a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1) is included in
the report required by this section, such report shall be considered
as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Approved October 16, 2002.

I can not believe that I have to rehash this. This is public record covered by innumerable news organizations and is easily searchable. It is not written in Sanskrit, for the love of Pete.

"Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts."
-- Bernard M. Baruch

"I can explain this to you; I can't comprehend it for you."
-- Ed Koch

 

[ceetee]

You're saying that section 3 gives the President unlimited authority, right? But authority to do what? Again, for those in the slow seats:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

It's only one document. It's not several different documents that all mean different things. It outlines a specific authority being given to the President. It tells us why that authority is being given, how the President has to prove that that authority needs to be used, and it tells us what requirements are expected from the President in the course of carrying out his duties.

I could give two shakes what anybody has been quoted as saying about the document... we all know politicians stretch the facts to suit their agenda. What I'm talking about is what the document actually says.

Save your sarcasm for somebody who appreciates it. Here, you just come off sounding like an ass.