Black Dog

Maybe Bush should debate Bush. Oh wait, he did. Classic from the Daily Show.

The "slippery slope" argument is absurd. As I pointed out earlier, there have been forms of gay marriage in other countries for many years and no one has called for leagalized polygamy, bestiality, etc. I also find it interesting that, were polygamy legalized, the people who would benefit would be religious extremists who believe in the Biblically-sanctioned practice of polygamy, people who would also oppose gay marriage. Huh. Last I checked, pedophilia was against the law. Homosexuality is not. There are enough existing statutes and precedent that the "can of worms" would remain shut even if gays are afforded the same rights as heterosexuals. Your continued attempts to paint pedophilia as a gay issue (erronerously, I might add: horribly biased "research" from the FRC notwthstanding), are a mere distraction from the main issue: equal rights. Bollocks. These things have existed for a loooong time (orgies? What's up, ancient Rome?) but North America's Judeo-Christian, Puritanical, post-Victorian climate of sexual repression just pushed them under the covers. Not that it matters anyway: what goes on in the bedroom between two (or more) informed, consenting adults is no one's business but their own.

Gee, since you have such a firm grasp on economic policy, perhaps you should go and dispense your wisdom to the thousands of impoverished Haitians who's livelihoods have been destroyed as a result of commodity dumping. Lost your farm? Destiute? Well, here's the solution: do something else. Frigging brilliant. I don't know why know one else has thought of that before. But meanwhile, here on Planet Earth, the fact of the matter is that job losses means lost income, and, in places like Haiti where economic conditions are so poor that opportunities are extremely limited, that means poverty. Obviously I wouldn't count you as one of those people. The simple reality is that Haiti is not a strange case, but a sad and all-too typical example of western economic neo- imperialism in action.

Just an aside here, but why is it if one were to suggest increasing government spending on, say, health care or education, the conserva-chorus would be up in arms with the usual denunciations and accusations of governemnt waste and inefficiency. But when the military is concerned, they can't write the cheques fast enough. Here's a question: would anyone support an increase in the top marginal tax rate in order to pay for a bump in military spending? Or are we to keep chanting the tax cut mantra while calling for yet more spending on the arm,ed forces? If so, how the hell are we suppossed to pay for the increase? That's like taking a pay cut to buy a Cadillac.

I would have thought that would be self-evident. Unless you think they grow cars? I'm not sure what your point is. If they went in and gave the cars away free, I'd still be out of business. The point here is that U.S. agribusinesses are expoliting an unfair competitive advantage in dumping commodities on the Haitian market. It's driving small, local producerrs out of business and into poverty. So there you go. Not exactly, but close enough, yeah Apparently. I know you're not being serious, but the statement you make is only truly ludicrious if the U.S. was acting in the interests of the taxpayer. That's not the case.

That's the rub, isn't it? Who really knows? Let's say I have in my hand a small pebble. Now, by rubbing this pebble, I can prevent meterors from crashing on my hometown. That sound ludicrious, of course, but since there have been no meteors crashing on my hometown, who's to say the pebble's not working? Exactly. Cynical political ploys all. (However, I'd hardly call fostering a domestic climate of fear and paranoia in order to pursue an unpopular agenda "nothing".) Paranoia: 1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason. 2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others. Here's a couple blasts from the past... Florida Muslim arrests were mistake Duct tape sales rise amid terror fears The question is, when does common sense emergency preparedness cross into paranoia fear and distrust? More on terror warnings.... Old, but interesting, survey. Your simplistic assesment of terrorist motives aside, how long before these vague warnings simply become part of the background noise and lose whatever effectiveness they might have? It's the boy who cried wolf on a grand scale.

Oh I know. But it's still specious to compare terrorism in C21 to fascist militarism in mid C20. Am I suggesting negotiating with Osama bin Laden and his ilk? Nope. What I am suggesting is that terrorism be addressed by a combination of "draining the swamp" (ie. mitigating the circumstances where terrorism-promoting ideaologies are allowed to flourish) and rigourous law enforcement to deal with the actual perpatrators of terrorist actions.

You're partially right: Bush isn't a cause. He's a symptom of a sick system. QUOTE]What are you scared of we have a President that is fighting for the United States and he is not backing down to anyone. It's about time. Thank You President Bush. No, I loathe Bush because he's a symbol of the greed, corruption, and moral decay that permeates politics today. One who coddles corporate criminals, who allows his and his cabinet's ties to big business and special interests dictate policy for the entire country, who wages bloody and needless conflicts against nations that pose no threat to the U.S. and its citizens, who alienates allies, who drags religious extermist views into politics. I could go on.

Or change "terrorism" to "halibut" or perhaps "hemoglobin" and see what happens. It makes about as much sense. What's with the specious Nazi anaolgies today?

Obviously not you. Invoking Hitler: always a tell tale sign of a losing argument. Apples and oranges. So willful ignorance it is, then. I've put up reams of supporting evidence. You've put up denials and obfuscations. You don't argue, you make declarations. You haven't countered a single point, just deny deny deny. This kind of non-debate is why I quit posting here for a while and why I see no point in continuing this discussion.

We're not talking cars here. We're talking agriculture. Dumping has wrecked Haiti's agricultural business because local producers (who don't have large government subsidies to rely on) cannot compete with the large amounts of cheap commodities being imported and still remain viable. To better illustrate this, let me borrow your analogy. My company builds cars. They cost $10,000 to produce and retail for $15,000. If Toyota comes in and start selling cars for $10,000 that cost $40,000 to produce (the difference being made up by government subsidies), I would have to lower my prices to compete which would, in turn, cut into my profits and make it harder for me to stay in business. Is any of this becoming clear yet?

*bangs head against wall* Or, and here's a wacky notion, they could have let the people of Chile deal with their own domestic issues themselves instead of subverting democracy and replacing one (completely hypothetical) butcher with another. Jesus Christ. CIA instructions on Chile coup. More documents Let's see... The Bush cabinet and friends. Open your eyes, man. I don't know why you are so eager to defend these people. They don't give a damn about you, they don't give a damn about abnybody else. You're blind to the simple realities of politics today. Whether its just basic naivete or willful ignorance is irrelevant. I don't see the point of this anymore.

terror warnings to little to protect the public. If, as we are always told, terrorists can strike anywhere at anytime, warning us about it won't do a damn thing beyond spread fear and paranoia. It's part of the shell game: keep the public in a state of fear over terrorism so they don't notice things like the economy, the rising cost of foreign adventures and so forth. As for 9-11, the complaints aren't due to a lack of warning, but a lack of action to prevent it.

The problem here is how the war on terror is being prosecuted. First, terrorism is a tactic, not an end unto itself. Terrorism has existed as long as there have been political causes. You can no more "stop terrorism" as you can stop the sun from rising. What you can do is address the political, social and economic issues that contribute to the propagation of terrorism tactics. In that, the west has failed in its war on terror.

Which shows why we never should have hitched our wagon to the chimp in Afghanistan or bought into the unwinnable war on terror. (edited to add) Of course, before I get lumped into "Oh, you hate Bush/America/ freedom category, let me just say that the attacks were an appalling act and those responsible should be found and prosecuted under Spanish law or international law, if appropriate.

Yeah that's right. I hate America. I also hate puppies, apple pie, and Jesus. I've made it pretty clear what my issues are with the U.S. and its foreign policy. But if you'd rather just attack a straw man, that's fine. Despite all your blathering about the atrocities committed by vile regimes in China., the Soviet Union etc, you still miss the point. No where did I say "America is one of the most violent nations". Nor did I say it was the worst offender. I'm simply indicating that the U.S. has consistenetly demonstrated that, despite rhetoric about defending democracy and so forth, it is driven by self-interest above all else. When the two (self-interest vs. freedom and democracy) come into conflict, self-interest inevitably triumphs. That doesn't make the U.S. worse than Hitler or anyone else. It just makes it a nation of hypocrites. So to prevent a hypothetical massacre by a democratically elected leader, the U.S. had to back a very real massacre of thousands of people? How do you sleep at night? You're really quite naive. In this age of massive mergers and consolidation, corporations are becoming larger, their numbers smaller and their power greater. And while they may compete with each other, they know how to sing from the same songbook on matters of mutual interest. And while theyre are a great number of advocacy and lobby groups, some are more powerful than others by virtue of having more money at their disposal. Let's put it this way: who's more likely to have their voice heard by the Bush administration: an environmental group or the oil and gas lobby? Money, not democracy, not the public interest, is what drives politics.

Your facts are wrong. Kerry served five months aboard the frigate the USS Gridley,went stateside for training, then returned to captain a Swft boat in the Mekong Delta. In the four month span, he recieved the Bronze Star, the Silver Star and was wounded in combat three times. That U.S. troops in Vietnam committed atrocities is a mtter of record. Kerry wasn't "speaking fasely", but revealing the ugly truth of war (something George W Bush wouldn't know the first thing about.)VIETNAM WAR VETERAN JOHN KERRY'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, APRIL 22, 1971 Kerry has the courage to take on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. However, he believes that we should keep the middle class tax cuts that Democrats fought for in 2001 and 2003. In fact, Kerry wants to give more tax breaks to the middle class with new tax credits on health care and college tuition. These tax cuts are part of his plan to restore the economy and cut the budget deficit in half in four years. yet Bush did nothing to stop the bleeding of jobs. Unless the admins bid to reclassify fast-food jobs as "manufacturing jobs" counts. NAFTA may not be good for Americans, but its great for American companies and their shareholders (in other words, Bush's key constituency). How? Yeah Bush has certainly talked a good game. he's violated the Geneva convention, gone to war against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., ignored or manipulated intelligence, alienated allies and squandered whatever good will was left from 9-11. Nice job, cowboy.

Do you know what "dumping" means? The most commonly understood definition describes the behavior of a firm that charges higher prices in its domestic sales of a given product than it charges when it exports. A more basic definition of dumping is the sale of goods abroad at less than cost of production prices. For example, if corn costs $2.50/ bushel to grow, but is sold by grain companies in world markets at only $2.00 a bushel, that would qualify as dumping. Domestic agricultural subsidies encourage dumping by spurring overproduction. This excess production is then fobbed off on developing markets. Agricultural dumping is the single most damaging trade practice for developing countries - destroying livelihoods, and increasing food insecurity. Export dumping also hurts U.S. farmers by lowering market prices on nearly all crops. The biggest beneficiaries are large commodity traders who are able to buy inputs, commodities, at extremely cheap prices.

Yes, let's not forget what Bush's leadership on 9-11 consisted of: running like a scalded dog and then showing up to strut and beat his chest well after the fact. I also find the constant refrains from the Bush camp about how much safer America is now to be hilarious, especially when put in context of the constant stream of "terror warnings" emanating from the White House. It's a campaign of fear by the Bushies.

So you don't have a rebuttal? The PNAC and neocon influenc eon this administration is hardly the stuff of the X-Files. It's right there in front of you, but you're too blind by your own idealogy to see it. Well that's the end of that conversation. Again, anything to counter the accusations or are you just gonna shoot the messanger? Never mind, I already know the answer. I'm still waiting for the political discussion to start, but no one here seems interested in arguing the points. This was written by someone with their head jammed up their backside. Not a real person who has endured hardship, nor seen the horrors of battle. It is blinded by idealogy that has no bearing on reality and plays so heavily on denial, obfuscation, and dogma that hides the utter lack of bearing on reality. Really? And how did he pull this off without anyone noticing? (Oh, and I dunno if you are aware of this, but Iran and Iraq were, like, enemies?) As for "government officials", do you mean guys like the head of the inspection program, David Kay? Without question, like every good German should? I support the troops. That's why I want them to come home alive. Well, neither are you. But anyway, those aren't the reasons Iraq was invaded, just the excuses. Saddam was never a credible threat. The first Gulf War left his military weakened and his weapons programs destroyed. He could have vowed to set up a Baathist regime on themoon. Doesn't mean he could have done it. Ah yes, the elite subterranean air force. Oh and just fo reveryone's info, here's a watchdog site with lots of background on PNAC. PNAC Info And augustia, the authour's name is Karen Kwiatkowski.

Now you're just being fatuous. :angry:

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war. The Bush administration is run, not on sound policy grounded in reality, but by an almost religious devotion to ideaology, perpetuated by a small cabal of appointees and puppetmasters whose goal is nothing short of acheiving total military, economic and political dominance by whatever means necessary.

WTF? the Smoking Gun

Exactly. That's the beauty of a democratic society (in theory): full equality before the law for all persons regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation. At the end of the day, most arguments against gay marriage are ultimately based in fear, ignorance, predjudice or hysteria. Gay marriage will be a reality: maybe not today or tomorrow, but its coming. But to speak quickly to the idea that tradition is against gay marriage, the fact is tradition is simply "the way its been done for x period of time." Traditions are created by and perpetuated by people and are therefore subject to change according to the will of people. They are not carved in stone. For example, slavery is a longstanding tradition in nearly every culture and civilization since the dawn of time. However, by and by we recognized that the traditional practice of slavery was unjust and went on to abolish it to the dustbin of history. Yes, gay marriage is a (mostly) untried social experiement. But what have we got to lose, realisticaly speaking?

Ah, good try. However, I probably should have used different terms like "economic instability" in the first post or put "restore stability" in quotations in the second. To clarify: Stability is an oft-used buzz word that largely depends on the context of its use. In this instance, "restoring stability" is being cited as a mandate of the intervention force, but again, the actual motives aren't to get Haitian society functioning, but to guarantee the "right" individuals get and retain power. However, such an arrangement would do nothing to promote Haiti's economic stability, as the hand-picked successors to Aristide exist soley to continue to implement the economic reforms that Aristide began as part of his return to power, but are resisted by large portions of the country's population. So, to sum up, while it may seem like a contradiction, it make ssense once you look at the big picture which would look something lik ethis. -the U.S. (also France) were unhappy with Aristide -they destabalized the Haitian governemnt by arming and supporting the "rebels" that overthrew Aristide - they moved to "restore stability" by sending a military force in to guarantee that Aristide's successor is who they want it to be. - Said successors lifespan as ruler is largely predicated on his implementation of policies that guarantee continued economic instability and dependency, policies that will then benefit U.S. and allied interests. See?