Darth Buddha

Is this some kind of weird Leftist body count competition to see who can be the most oppressed, victimized? Body count isn't leftist or rightist. Body count is a cold hard statistic. Claiming that they are "rightist" or "leftist" is sheer nuttery. Seriously, if you've been to the West Bank, you know it's a hole where folks are short due to malnutrition, a place without hope, in a land that was SEIZED militarily. On the flip side, Israel has crazy security for good reason. Terrorism matters, but body count does matter too. So too does excessive "collateral damage." Blowing up an apartment building with thirty or more people just to get one terrorist seems uncivilized because it is. The Israelis are in many ways guilty of putting a conquered people in a concentration camp (in the true meaning of the word, as invented by the Brits in South Africa). Doesn't wash the terrorists hands, doesn't mean carte blanche for Hamas, but it does mean the Israelis have dirty hands too. So long as bystanders are killed at such extreme rates (by both sides) boycotting BOTH Israel AND the Hamas lead Palestinian government might not be such a bad idea. They'd settle things pretty quickly, or face economic calamity.

I don't mind if you are. Throw in "Greed is NOT always good" and I might join in the choir. But on matters that don't HURT anybody else, I really think we ought to leave folks alone. I don't think gay marriage ... though I'd prefer civil union ... is a threat to anyone. Christians will still believe what they want, and still marry the way they want. Now if somebody tried to FORCE Christians to do gay marriages, or somebody wanted to FORCE Christians to marry a different way, THEN I'd have some real issues. The day after pill prevents implantation: just like many birth control pills do. Until a fertilized egg implants in the uterus (off the top of my head I'm remembering that 30% of fertilized eggs don't implant - and I don't feel like Googling any more this eve), you can't even call a woman pregnant. Moreover, I'm a lot happier with day after than I would be with fetal abortions... especially the second trimest on kind. As a lesser of two evils, I think it's probably better if it is available. Now the gland bit? I'm not a fan of promiscuity either, but for simple common sense reasons: disease, premature emotional entanglements, the cheapening of the act in an emotional sense, etc. Not any commandment from any God. In a country where State sponsered churches are ruled out in the Constitution, I should be free to make such differentiations by my own values and ethics as much as Christians are allowed to differentiate in THEIR lives. I don't force my values on them, and wouldn't even if I were Emperor Deebs the 1st, they ought not to force their values on anybody else. Wasn't that what most religious groups that came to this country in the first place were looking for in the first place? Now I DO know some gay activists who want to strut and get into people's faces with their sexuality. You know, some of the gay parades, etc.? For example, a guy I know said he wanted to CELEBRATE his sexuality and that my discomfort was because I was a homophobe. Truth is, I don't want to hear graphic details of ANYONE's sex life, and he was man enough to understand that when I said so. On the flip side, in urban areas where homosexuals are accepted, I've seen an entirely different kind of gay parade: the attitude was "this is our parade, and we aren't here to get in anybody's face." They even invited straight groups to join in if they wanted, including a motorcycle gang. I prefer the latter approach to the former!

Is your memory that selective? You repeatedly called me a fool for crossing pens with you. I still haven't called you anything... I picked up on twit used on others. I consider being called a LEFTY a pretty dreadful name too. I'll check to see if I missed any other good examples. Moreover, an ad hominem is no worse than cases where you've engaged in straw man attack. You know, misrepresenting a post so you can belittle it. You aren't an egregious perpetrator, but you get your digs in. I'll dig again tomorrow evening. Or perhaps you are big enough to point them out yourself? (I'm not slamming there, you might well be. I'd consider it a pleasant surprise these days!)

Close, but I really MEAN it is a weakness in politics. I'm certainly not drawing on the philo teeth. After all, look at Dukakis (sp?) vs. Bush in debate. His response to the question of his family being raped and/or killed was the correct philosophical response, but was an absolute failure as rhetoric. Logical and rational just aren't the required response in some venues. Dukakis was a fool not to feign offense at the very premise. Bush the first, while a pretty damned smart and rational guy but a weak speaker, would NEVER have fallen for that. He'd have thought about it, but not fallen for it. Bush II? I don't think he'd think about it, he'd just react from his gut. Sometimes, that's the right thing to do. If anyone gets the chance to see that exchange in a documentary or tape, it's worth the watch: you can almost feel Dukakis put the last nail in his campaign's coffin right there and then. Of course, I had already decided Dukakis was not competent despite his 'competence' campaign long before the debate: his inability to hold onto a significant lead over Bush demonstrated he wasn't competent. Besides, I liked most of Bush Sr.'s positions in THAT election.

Yeah, the amendment failed, as they knew it would. It's not about changing anything at this point, and given that younger generations aren't as homophobic as the elder generations. Even my generation was pretty homophobic, homophobic jokes, songs, etc. I like to remind some of my left leaning friends of the jokes they told in undergrad when they get too preachy! I wasn't either pro or con: but I did enjoy the classic sitting down right next to a gay philo major who claimed I was afraid of gays. Turned out he was damned afraid of straights! He cringed. Gotta love proof by experiment. But I digress. The younger generation is more tolerant, so the issue will eventually be settled as "what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander(s)." It's in the demographics. Maybe we'll see the elimination of the whole "hate crime" BS too, but I'm probably dreaming. It'll just swing even farther to the left and then maybe drift back to the sane middle. That's how the nitwit extremes do things these days. So it's all about dividing and inflaming. Divisiveness is JUST what we need right now, eh?

If the motive was revenge, then slaughter applies. There were plenty of pragmatic and political purposes in taking out Zarqawi. He WAS a TRUE enemy combatant, we OWED it to the Iraqi people (Shia AND Sunni) to remove such an indiscriminate killer, and his removal netted intelligence that may further aid in removing foreign fighters from the equation. Slaughter? Nope. He was elminated out of necessity.

Right. I guess this is also neocon-think? Ignore the facts (like Johnny boy's outrageous slander, and Burnsy's obvious lies) and focus only on my very same tactic in reply. Ignore your accusiing other "twits" of baiting him? I'll add it to my neocon field notes. Invasion is called liberation. Occupation is called freedom. What's fair for the goose ISN'T fair for the gander. It is REALLY tough to get through the new neocon lip service. Is there a dictionary to be had somewhere? My policy is that those who use them get them in return. Those who do open themselves up to the same. Those who don't, don't deserve that kind of treatment, and don't get it. So, how's your "twit" scored? Is that name calling or not? Burnsy too, did he namecall or not?

Damn, boy, why don't you read what I actually said regarding said education. While logic isn't what I use to earn a living, it's NOT an asset in dealing with Johnny boy, Burnsy, and their ilk. I actually mean JUST what I said: dealing with folks who lie, distort, and get their facts bassackwards are tough for me because I don't usually have to deal with such blatant examples on a day to day basis. In undergrad, I would have been docked for even acknowledging that sort of crap. In debunking neocon falsehoods and half truths, that's a REAL liability. I really DO want to get better at dealing with them, and I'm a bit out of practise. In this case, education in one field (logic) is a DISADVANTAGE in the other (pure retoric, fielding smears and lies, etc.) so I'm not pumping myself up, I'm admitting a real weakness.

Personal attack? Like calling me a FAR LEFTY? The Nazi card is usually inappropriate, but here it's just the mirror image of the FAR LEFTY card. You label me sa few MILES off to the left, so I do the same to you, on the right. I HOPE you aren't a Nazi, just as I HOPED that you might see the symmetry in accused party affiliation. Exaggeration, hyperbole, and smear in response to the same. Maybe you really DO see Arlen, Todd Whitman, and even McCain as a FAR LEFTY, in which case, I've stumbled upon the truth while trying to teach a lesson, and you are one scary peace of work.

THANK YOU. I must have been half asleep when I typed that: I use the location "In the Left Hand of God" everywhere, after all. I comprehend the source of your confusion, I'll see to that right away. Yeah, right. Count how many times I part company with the left. Look at how I pan Clinton (both of them), Kerry, and Gore. See how I differ with liberal ideas about the "freedom" of recipients of aid. Check out how I side with a Christian movement THAT I THINK IS AS BAD AS ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM on issues of equal treatment under the law. Moreover, just because I have a Libertarian social bent, a classic just war philosophy (out of fashion with nitwits on the left and right), and think the Neocons are a piss poor substitute for Paleocons, that doesn't make me a lefty. If Bush is your sole definition of the right, and the left is anyone who doesn't like him, then you really ARE a fascist. If I called you a liberal peacenik, would YOU not protest? Moreover, my contention is everyone who can't tell the difference between a Moderate Republican from WAY back and a FAR LEFTY is indeed a fool. The kind that likes brown shirts. Anyone who thinks pointing out the obvious downsides of a situation is a FAR LEFTY when even the White House has learned not to celebrate or declare a "turning point" when it may or may not be must be either an idiot or to the right of Rush Limbaugh (yeah, the brown shirt thing again).

Ranter? Nope. Correcting fools like you probably SOUNDS like a rant to you because you don't know better: facts aren't either of your strong points, just slander. So here's another update that might sound like a rant to a total fool: "In the Left Hand of God" is a term that goes back a millenium and has nothing to do with politics. If you are a Christian, I'd think the reference and meaning would be obvious. Here's another point to ponder: Why would I diss Al Gore, Greenpeace, Hillary Clinton, reveal that I changed party affiliation to vote AGAINST Clinton and Kerry in the primaries if I were a lefty? Finally, if some Nazi-Anti-Moderate-Republican like Johnny decides to call me a far lefty (an insult that is as bad as callilng me a neocon), what am I supposed to do? Let HIM label me falsely? I don't care if it IS his only mode of debate, that label will not stick. Now if you want to side with Nazi-Anti-Moderate-Republican-Boy against a Moderate Republican like me, that's your busines. But if I'm what you consider a far lefty, then you might consider buying a brown shirt too.

I hope it is a turning point, I just see the good with the bad. Something you apparently aren't up to. As for being on the left, I'm fairly certain I was voting Moderate Republican when you were still in diapers. If I'm a far lefty, then you must be be a skinheaded fascist who wear's a pee stained sheet on conical hat every weeekend. Come to think of it, I've voted Republican more often than not: Arlen Spector, John Heinz, Bush the First. I never voted for Clinton, and changed my party affiliation for two presidential primaries just to vote AGAINST Cllinton and Kerry in the primaries (and for General Clark as the Democratic nominee). Of course, I've been VERY lucky: in the Atlantic and Northeast states, Republicans HAVE to be moderate in order to get elected. Moderate Republicans are the best problem solvers I know. Not like their neofascist kin. Yeah, I'm some lefty. If I'm a FAR LEFTY then you have to be a nazi-skinhead by comparison to me. In a case of fair for the goose being grist for the gander, I'm gonna call you lump you with the Skinheads and Nazis from here on out. After all, if you think the folks who vote for Spector, Todd-Whitman, and other clear-headed Moderate Republicans, you'd HAVE to be a fascist to call them FAR LEFT. Lynched anybody lately? Made any human skin lampshades? Surely you've gassed somebody? If you haven't got them, I know a place that has Jack-boots, cheap (hell, you might want to buy the boots I used for Halloween '02). I don't have a brown shirt, so you'll have to dig that one up on your own. See ya round, Nazi-boy.

I'm really disappointed to hear Burns was punted, it doesn't seem fair although I don't know the details. I know I saw him being completely goaded several times recently, and I pointed it out to the twit who was doing it, maybe they were trying to get him kicked out. Right. Mourn the passed nitwit all you want. He wasn't even adequate as a nitwitted neocon foil.

Meltdown? Is that the best you can do? Come ON, you can do better than that. Where are your spoon fed talking points? Where is your I enjoy sharpening my teeth with folks like you: I'm schooled in philosophy and logic, so dealing with your kind of BS doesn't come natural. You're a freaking posterboy for dogmatic ignorance, lies, and irrationality. Too bad I have to go to a leftist blog to practice on your mirror images amongst lefties. Oh, and do keep your head in a dark place. Heaven forbid you use your own eyes, or your own brain. You wouldn't be of any use to me at all if you did that.

Yeah, right. They won't be happy. I think you need to check who went on that trip with Bush again. As usual, your facts are bassakwards. I sure hope that nobody noticed that Bush stayed in a U.S. fortress the whole time: they might realize that the U.S. can't provide security anywhere beyond their front door. I hope they don't notice that he had to undertake the trip without even telling his full cabinet because if the insurgency knew he was coming he wouldn't be safe. Yeah. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I'm GLAD he made the trip, and I'm GLAD his meeting with the chief executive went well, but there's so much obviously WRONG with the story as well. It's all out there in the open, Johnny, in plain sight. How are people like you duped so easily?