Flag Burning

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Even so, the program was bearing fruit. If you had the time to follow every public statement and document you could maybe have drawn inferences that such activity was going on. I certainly assumed that we were doing creative things like this. It was still basically a secret program, you can't say it was common public knowledge like it is now. The Times put it on the front page and described what was going on and how it worked and that it was aimed at tracking terrorists. The funny part is that they'll still continue doing it and will probably still catch people.

My problem with the Times is that were begged by the government to keep quiet and despite there being no real problems with the program, they thought the best thing to do would be to expose it. It would almost appear that they want us to lose. These are some of the only ways we can get information about what these people are doing.

Why did they publish this story? What was the public good for the US? And a blatantly political question, if the Times had come to know about the same program during a Clinton administration (Bill or Hillary) and President Clinton pleaded with them to not run the story, does anyone believe the story would have run. Not a chance in hell! So what that means is that they didn't do it for any noble right of the public to know all that goes on. It's out national security at stake, lives are at stake, yet they play politics.

Art, you conservatives seem to hold a view of the Times that is at least ten years out of date. Believe me, I wish they pandered to liberals the way the Washington Sun, FoxNews, MSNBC, the NYPost, etc., etc., pander to the neo-cons. The Times was happy to jump on the Iraq bandwagon, when even I, an idiot average Joe, could see that Bush's rationals for going to war were spotty at best. They were happy to pick up and run with that ridiculous Swift Boats crap, giving the story far more legs than it should have had. During the 2000 campaign, they were happy to do articles on Gore's "exagerrations," ignoring Bush's blatant lies (like taking credit for passing the Patient Bill of Rights that he actually vetoed). Did you see the recent front-page article on the Clinton marriage? Have you seen comparable recent articles on the affair and divorce of John McCain, the affair, divorce, affair divorce of Gingrich and the divorce, affair and messy divorce of Giuliani? Have you read one of David Brooks' columns? Please.

Clearly this bank spying thing wasn't a secret, and actually kind of makes the Bush Administration look marginally competent. So maybe that's why they got so mad? Their secret plan on terror is to look like complete bumbling idiots and this plan being news makes them look less incompetent?

I think a lot of the Plame thing is whether people lied under oath. Which, I believe, is what Clinton was charged with, as getting a hummer in the Oval Office isn't illegal. And if you were protesting his impeachment as a waste of time and taxpayer money back then, please do let me know.

Let see-- what do I think is more deserving of our news attention span? The torture issue comes to mind-- 1) Bush signing a torture ban and adding a codecil (spelling?) that he plans to ignore it if he wants. At least 100 prisoners having died in US custody while held under suspicion of being terrorists. Died. In our care. We're the USA; we're supposed to be better than the people we're fighting. 2) The gov't holding up the release of a vaccine for the kind of genital warts that cause cervical cancer, because there is concern that it will encourage teenage girls to have sex. Because, of course, it's morally appropriate to let them get CANCER instead. 3) New Orleans. New Orleans, New Orleans. 4) Safety issues in the mines. Guess what's gone down in the years of the Bush administration? Mine safety inspections and violations issued. Maybe you're a blue-blood and don't care, but my family included miners on my mom's side and the cuts in mine safety are disgusting. 5) Oh, and this little mess we're in called Iraq. Congress gets a vote on flag-burning to go off when we have no exit strategy? God help us. 6) Continual efforts on the part of the Republicans to get rid of the estate tax, which affects only one percent of Americans and only kicks in after someone leaves an estate in excess of, I believe, $7 million. Because of course, who can possibly live on only $7 million dollars? How dare they take 35 percent of everything over that, meaning one leaves a piddling $65 million instead of $100 million. Who can possibly survive on $65 million?

And in general, the establishment of a government that seems to view the Constitution as an obstacle to get around, not the basis of our nation.

Okay, back to my corner to breathe deeply and then back to the Paddock for happier things to read about. Please know ArtJim, I don't take any of this personally and I really do enjoy hearing your views. Likewise any of the other cons on the board who present their views clearly and well. I'm always amenable to having my position changed if it was wrong.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Art, you conservatives seem to hold a view of the Times that is at least ten years out of date. Believe me, I wish they pandered to liberals the way the Washington Sun, FoxNews, MSNBC, the NYPost, etc., etc., pander to the neo-cons. The Times was happy to jump on the Iraq bandwagon, when even I, an idiot average Joe, could see that Bush's rationals for going to war were spotty at best. They were happy to pick up and run with that ridiculous Swift Boats crap, giving the story far more legs than it should have had. During the 2000 campaign, they were happy to do articles on Gore's "exagerrations," ignoring Bush's blatant lies (like taking credit for passing the Patient Bill of Rights that he actually vetoed). Did you see the recent front-page article on the Clinton marriage? Have you seen comparable recent articles on the affair and divorce of John McCain, the affair, divorce, affair divorce of Gingrich and the divorce, affair and messy divorce of Giuliani? Have you read one of David Brooks' columns? Please.

Clearly this bank spying thing wasn't a secret, and actually kind of makes the Bush Administration look marginally competent. So maybe that's why they got so mad? Their secret plan on terror is to look like complete bumbling idiots and this plan being news makes them look less incompetent?

I think a lot of the Plame thing is whether people lied under oath. Which, I believe, is what Clinton was charged with, as getting a hummer in the Oval Office isn't illegal. And if you were protesting his impeachment as a waste of time and taxpayer money back then, please do let me know.

Let see-- what do I think is more deserving of our news attention span? The torture issue comes to mind-- 1) Bush signing a torture ban and adding a codecil (spelling?) that he plans to ignore it if he wants. At least 100 prisoners having died in US custody while held under suspicion of being terrorists. Died. In our care. We're the USA; we're supposed to be better than the people we're fighting. 2) The gov't holding up the release of a vaccine for the kind of genital warts that cause cervical cancer, because there is concern that it will encourage teenage girls to have sex. Because, of course, it's morally appropriate to let them get CANCER instead. 3) New Orleans. New Orleans, New Orleans. 4) Safety issues in the mines. Guess what's gone down in the years of the Bush administration? Mine safety inspections and violations issued. Maybe you're a blue-blood and don't care, but my family included miners on my mom's side and the cuts in mine safety are disgusting. 5) Oh, and this little mess we're in called Iraq. Congress gets a vote on flag-burning to go off when we have no exit strategy? God help us. 6) Continual efforts on the part of the Republicans to get rid of the estate tax, which affects only one percent of Americans and only kicks in after someone leaves an estate in excess of, I believe, $7 million. Because of course, who can possibly live on only $7 million dollars? How dare they take 35 percent of everything over that, meaning one leaves a piddling $65 million instead of $100 million. Who can possibly survive on $65 million?

And in general, the establishment of a government that seems to view the Constitution as an obstacle to get around, not the basis of our nation.

Okay, back to my corner to breathe deeply and then back to the Paddock for happier things to read about. Please know ArtJim, I don't take any of this personally and I really do enjoy hearing your views. Likewise any of the other cons on the board who present their views clearly and well. I'm always amenable to having my position changed if it was wrong.

Genuine,
You really ARE paying attention. And it's good to see your passion.
No amount of logic is going to convice the ignorant, nor are the facts.
Two things you left out:
1) Bush, in a new conference in 2002, stated that he would seek bank records of the "terrorists". It's on all the network news (CNN,MSNBC, more)
2) He limited stem cell research to 78 cell lines, tying the hands of research scientists, so that he could pursue his own "born again" religious agenda....and remember the "intelligent design" flap?

Short memories.
I already e-mailed the White House and told them that the wmd's are in my garage. They're still there.
Now if that was important, my guess is that someone would have shown up and picked them up by now.

Bottom line...those that want to continue to believe will do so. Changing admits their gullibility (ignorance). No amount of words will do otherwise.
They voted for it, they own it, they defend it, they die for it.

"If a blind man follows another blind man, they both end in the pit."
__Jesus

[ArlJim78]

Genuine, okay you are passionate and have really opened this up. I will try to respond succinctly. First I do not take any of this personally and do not mind a dialogue with a passionate rational person with an open mind, which you appear to be, even if the expressed views are diametrically opposed to my own. I’m less interested in close-minded blowhards who think any person with an opinion different from their own is simply ignorant.

BTW my name is Jim not Art. Also you started off with “you conservatives”, I really don’t fit the label. Also I’m really not a “blueblood”. I don’t think these kinds of labels are helpful.

There is so much I take issue with in your post that I can’t possibly go into great detail. But I think I get where you’re coming from. Your position is that if we didn’t have Bush as president we would have, won the war on terror without fighting the war, without taking prisoners and without spying. We would have cured genital warts and girls would no longer get cervical cancer. Natural disasters like Katrina would not have happened and the levees would have been fortified and would not have given way. Mine disasters would not have happened because mine safety would not have been cut. We would have increased the taxes on the wealthy and their heirs to make ourselves feel good.

Some quick points:
I don’t know what was ridiculous about the Swift Boat story. Kerry made his VN experience the centerpiece of his campaign. That some of his fellow soldiers took issue with his version of it I think is relevant.

The Times is not favorable to Republicans or conservatives. Has there been any, even one positive story about this administration? I didn’t see the Clinton marriage article but I will say this, if it was negative at all it was only because Hillary is now perceived to have no shot at winning the presidency. You will see other friendly fire directed her way in my opinion. I think the big decision makers and big money are looking elsewhere. I think they are smart because in terms of the presidency she is unelectable.

You wrote: “And in general, the establishment of a government that seems to view the Constitution as an obstacle to get around, not the basis of our nation.” Can you give some specific examples of this?

I’m not a rabid Bush supporter. I have big problems with his lack of fiscal responsibility, his lack of leadership in some areas, his lack of good communication skills both personally and his administration as a whole. I admire him for his steadfast leadership on the WOT and Iraq.

I didn't read this entire thread, but all I have to say is if folks think they have a "right" to burn the American flag then I should have the "right" to kick whosever ass that's doing it and not be penalized for it.

[irishtrekker]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

There is so much I take issue with in your post that I can’t possibly go into great detail. But I think I get where you’re coming from. Your position is that if we didn’t have Bush as president we would have, won the war on terror without fighting the war, without taking prisoners and without spying. We would have cured genital warts and girls would no longer get cervical cancer. Natural disasters like Katrina would not have happened and the levees would have been fortified and would not have given way. Mine disasters would not have happened because mine safety would not have been cut. We would have increased the taxes on the wealthy and their heirs to make ourselves feel good.

And in from the other corner of the ring is liberal girl number 2! Apologies in advance for slight incoherence: I'm running on coffee fumes and normally am more logical than this.

I don't think that's what GR was saying at all, but I don't want to put words in our mouth, so here's what I say. I would never suggest extremes like that, and I think it's hyperbolic to do so. What I would say is that if we didn't have Bush as president, we wouldn't necessarily have entered a "war" on terrorism without acknowledging the potential for that war to have no end. We might have expanded our strategy beyond "bomb the crap out of anyone who might be a threat" to "consider how some of our own behaviors have contributed to the problem and fix those in addition to bombing the crap out of people." One of the things that's frustrated me most about the war on terror is that it's anathema to even dare suggest that we might need to take a long look in the mirror and do something about ourselves if we actually want to win it. Nothing justifies attacking innocent people, but it's ignorant and unhelpful to think that everyone else in the world is "wrong" and we're "right." Like it or not, people around the world are angered by what they perceive as our arrogance, our power-trips, our boorish behavior and our general disregard for world politics that don't involve us. Failing to listen to them does have consequences: we can't live in a damn bubble and then cry foul when it bursts! Living abroad makes me realize that we do get unfairly criticized, but at the same time we are the world "superpower" and that comes with a level of responsibility that we need to accept. When we're developing new nuclear weapons and telling other people not to, when we're blatantly disregarding the warning signs about climate change and telling sinking island nations to stop whining, when we talk about the importance of treating people humanely and then let Guantanamo get to the point where the Red Cross is investigating it...well, maybe acting a little less like the bully on the block would actually do a lot of good. If we improve our national image, then we'd win back some of those allies who've grown disgusted with us. Right now, we're letting the terrorists win the damn war: we're getting ugly, stooping to some of their own tactics (torture), and curtailing domestic freedoms.

We aren't going to cure genital warts or stop cancer, at least not anytime soon, but what the hell is an administration doing by holding up something that could at least prevent the two? It's like refusing to give people an AIDS vaccine. The problem with genital warts is that it's almost impossible to detect -- you could marry someone who has it without either of you ever knowing. Is it really fair to penalize kids by consicously letting their cancer risk increase because a vaccine somehow conflicts with your moral fiber? Is that REALLY the government's job?

Of course natural disasters like Katrina would happen, but I don't think we'd have an Arabian horse judge in charge of FEMA (or was it quarter horses?) who'd inflated his resume to make it look like he knew something about disaster management when he actually didn't have a clue. The fact of the matter is that people were worried about the levees, went to Bush's people, and were told that it wasn't a problem. Sure, Bush himself probably didn't have much to do with this, but like every other incident it comes down to whether we should retain faith in a leader who cannot appoint competent people to important positions. Oh yeah, and we'd also probably have some sort of climate policy in place so our children don't have even bigger disasters to worry about year after year. But hey, a bunch of scientists on oil industry payrolls don't think it's happening, and Michael Crichton doesn't believe it either. Heck, I'll choose Crichton over a bunch of atmospheric scientists from around the world who've devoted their entire careers to this! Those Greenland people whining about their melting ice sheets can just learn to swim, and it's not like we've ever cared about other species anyway, so why worry now that many can't adapt to the changes? More room for us!

I don't have a problem taxing the wealthy, sorry. When the rich-poor gap is growing like it is, I think people have a responsibility to give back proportionally. Look at the Gates and Buffet -- you don't see them whining about taxes (note that Bill Gates Sr. is a major advocate for the estate tax). If everyone truly had an equal opportunity to be wealthy and successful in this world, then maybe I'd grumble about the tax...but my parents worked their butts off for us and will probably never be able to retire. I may never be able to buy a house in my family's area, even though I worked my way through school and have had jobs since I was 15. I don't really have a lot of sympathy for a multimillionaire who doesn't want to fork over a few of his millions. Last time I checked, even the wealthy need a functioning national economy to remain wealthy, and slashing all these taxes is pushing us closer to the edge financially. What happens if China comes calling on all the debt we owe them?

Mine safety: who knows if mines would collapse or not, but a company with 100 citations for safety would be shut down before it killed anyone...and isn't the company still operating elsewhere?

I am not willing to support a president because he looks like a good leader in a war, particularly when I think his "leadership" is all posturing and fear-mongering. Maybe the reason there haven't been any positive stories about Bush making the headlines lately is that there just aren't any to write.

Pardon the diatribe, but I just feel like we're all wrapped around the fingers of a few powerful people right now, and it makes me very angry. I'm young, and this stuff may all come home to roost when my generation takes over. That doesn't make me very happy.

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I’m not a rabid Bush supporter. I have big problems with his lack of fiscal responsibility, his lack of leadership in some areas, his lack of good communication skills both personally and his administration as a whole. I admire him for his steadfast leadership on the WOT and Iraq.

Well stated ... reflects my views also.

[Cajungator26]

Just my opinion, but both parties are so similar to one another now, you can hardly discern a difference. (This is coming from a republican.)

[GenuineRisk]

Oh, I'm so annoyed I didn't check this thread until now! This is so much fun to read and I really do enjoy spirited but civilized debate.

First off, Jim, my apologies for referring to you as "Art"-- I tend to use people's screen names until they tell me otherwise (I love screen names-- it's like a secret identity!). I'm happy to call you Jim (James, which I assume is your full name, is one of my favorite names and my writing partners and I named one of the central characters in one of our screenplays James on my suggestion. )

I think you might have misinterpreted some of my statements-- I'll go back and clarify later tonight but right now I have to go do a narration for a sea lion feeding and then to see some friends but I'll get back into this tonight, I promise!

Thank goodness for the OT board or I'd still be a "foal"-- I read almost all the posts in the Paddock every day, but I'm still too much of a novice handicapper to be of much use posting there...

And for the anti-flag burners-- please keep in mind that most instances of flag burning in this country are already illegal in that the flags burned did not belong to the burner so it was already a crime under destruction of property laws. I think there were four instances last year, one of which was by a drunk 16-year-old who probably just lit up the first thing he stumbled upon.

And according to the Boy Scout Manual, the most fitting end for a worn-out old flag is to... can you guess? That's right; burn it. And that it's disrespectful to write on the flag, or wear it. Anyone want to tell Bush, who signs lots of flags, that he's disrespecting Old Glory?

AND-- I just found out the Wall Street Journal ran a story on the bank records thing on the SAME DAY as the NY TImes, and in the same place on the paper-- front page, upper left. But is Bush calling the WSJ traitorous? Oh, nooooo...

Oops; now I'm late. Sea lions will be mad... see you in a few hours.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Oh, I'm so annoyed I didn't check this thread until now! This is so much fun to read and I really do enjoy spirited but civilized debate.

First off, Jim, my apologies for referring to you as "Art"-- I tend to use people's screen names until they tell me otherwise (I love screen names-- it's like a secret identity!). I'm happy to call you Jim (James, which I assume is your full name, is one of my favorite names and my writing partners and I named one of the central characters in one of our screenplays James on my suggestion. )

I think you might have misinterpreted some of my statements-- I'll go back and clarify later tonight but right now I have to go do a narration for a sea lion feeding and then to see some friends but I'll get back into this tonight, I promise!

Thank goodness for the OT board or I'd still be a "foal"-- I read almost all the posts in the Paddock every day, but I'm still too much of a novice handicapper to be of much use posting there...

And for the anti-flag burners-- please keep in mind that most instances of flag burning in this country are already illegal in that the flags burned did not belong to the burner so it was already a crime under destruction of property laws. I think there were four instances last year, one of which was by a drunk 16-year-old who probably just lit up the first thing he stumbled upon.

And according to the Boy Scout Manual, the most fitting end for a worn-out old flag is to... can you guess? That's right; burn it. And that it's disrespectful to write on the flag, or wear it. Anyone want to tell Bush, who signs lots of flags, that he's disrespecting Old Glory?

AND-- I just found out the Wall Street Journal ran a story on the bank records thing on the SAME DAY as the NY TImes, and in the same place on the paper-- front page, upper left. But is Bush calling the WSJ traitorous? Oh, nooooo...

Oops; now I'm late. Sea lions will be mad... see you in a few hours.

GR,
Today GW got a spank from the Supreme Court... 5-3
Clarance Thomas wrote the dissent.

Where's Anita Hill when we need her?

DTS