Thursday, May 14, 2009
Pelosi Says CIA lied to her
Pelosi's logic is flawed. She says the CIA told her they had legal authority to use waterboarding but had not used it which is why she didn't do anything. Even if this was true, the CIA says it told her they had used waterboarding, this does not make sense. If the CIA had said they had legal authority to pull off fingernails and blind someone (obviously torture) would she not have done anything? IMO Pelosi is in trouble.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
97 comments:
Hi Joe, sorry I haven't commented lately but I have been really busy, also I would like to see others like Mom, Dad, William, Tracy, and other cousins, nephews comment too, but nobody else ever does? did you invite them like you invited me?how many people have you invited so far???...when only one person comments it becomes just a discussion between you and me, not a blog with many and various points of view, in other words kind of a waste of time.
As for Pelosi if she knew of torture and did nothing to stop it she's just as guilty of war crimes, though maybe to a lesser degree, as the rest of the lot, torture is illegal in the USA, it is a horrible crime and should be punished as a horrible crime, the lawyers who caved into Cheney and Bush to give them an out saying their advice was that torture was legal or that torture was not really torture, should be disbarred at the very least, this is obvious corruption, they did not have the courage or integrity to stand up to Bush and Cheney and state the truth,i.e., that torture is torture and illegal in the USA and Europe and in all other civilized societies...they should all do jail time and Cheney should do a lot of jail time for numerous war crimes.
Pelosi chickened out because she knew the media would label her a terrorist lover at the time, she did not have the courage of a leader which she pretends to be, if the allegations are really true...
Pelosi is one of our better leaders in congress (which is not hard to be since they are mostly crooks Conyers, Feingold, Kucinich being exceptions of course) so it would be a shame to lose her, but the law is the law and morality is morality and if you get caught being immoral you should suffer the consequences especially if you a re a leader elected by the people to do what is right, no matter how good you are otherwise.
However looking through your recent comments you seem to think torture is just fine if done by Americans am I reading you correctly here?
Do you think it would be just fine for Iranians to torture Americans if Americans were plotting terrorist actions against Iranians?
By the way I'm curious to know if Obama / Feingold in 2012 were running against Palin /and another Republican of your choice for VP...who would you vote for?
Here is a link concerning the torture hearings, CIA agents testifying saying torture does not work and did not work and other methods that were not torture did work and that torture actually was giving us false information tying up valuable resources to protect us from future terrorist attacks
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/14/former_fbi_interrogator_ex_state_dept
First, water-boarding can describe many things. In some instances it is torture. As implemented by the Justice Department memos, many feel it was not torture,as no long term physical or mental injury was done.
Second, it doesn't matter how many people say it doesn't work when you have an instance it does work. It is said that we got more information after water-boarding the 3 terrorist than the CIA/NSA etc as gotten using other means. Water-boarding was one used after the other methods did not work. Now one can argue that given enough time other methods might have produce the same or better results, but the facts remain water-boarding and maybe other advance techniques (not torture) was the only thing that did work.
Third, false information will be given what ever the method of interrogation. Torture is unless for confession. But to gather possible valid information it may still be useful. Why else would so many people use it, like the mafia, drug dealers, and most nations?
By the way I'm curious to know if Obama / Feingold in 2012 were running against Palin /and another Republican of your choice for VP...who would you vote for?
-Don't know yet. If Obama does well in the next few years, I would probably vote for him. I personally don't think that will happen given the first few months, but I am will to give him time.
-Palin is a populist. I like some things about her and feel she has been attacked unfairly. But I don't know enough about her to make the decision now. But if where Biden vs Palin, I would definitely choose Palin. Biden is a mess.
So from your answers above can I conclude correctly that you believe the following ?
You think Waterboarding is not torture if done by trained personnel and if it does not cause permanent physical or mental damage...i.e., if someone like the mafia or the police or the cia waterboarded you, mom or Tracy's children say 100 times yet it did not cause you or them long term physical or mental damage you would consider that you or they were not tortured?
If it came down to Biden vs Palin for the Presidency you would vote Palin?
If a drug dealer was holding my child hostage, torturing someone who knew where my child was would do nothing to free my child, the fact that your child is already held hostage means you have no choice but to pay the ransom if you ever want to see your child alive again, hostage taking happens all the time in south america and that's what people do , they pay the ransom and it works, the children are let go because they want the money...if you torture the partner of your kidnapper they will most likely kill your child whether you pay the money or not. Torture is not only highly immoral it is stupid...Torture does not work...these are the facts.
Torture is only useful for obtaining false confessions, it works almost 100% of the time for that, any cia operative or sadic police brut will confirm that, and it works for obtaining false confessions anywhere in the world.
you said above "It is said that we got more information after water-boarding the 3 terrorist than the CIA/NSA etc as gotten using other means."
Where did you get that info Fox News? Rush Limbaugh?
I have no evidence that Iranians have tortured Americans , I'm not saying they haven't but I've yet to see any evidence...do you have any? ...and I mean serious evidence not Fox propaganda and similar, something at least as credible as the New York Times.
Finally you say Obama in his first months has not done a good job, can you give examples where you feel he has failed?
"if you torture the partner of your kidnapper they will most likely kill your child whether you pay the money or not. "
You assume the kidnappers want money. What if they want you to kill thousands of people (you might have access, for example, to a chemical plant). If the police get the location of your child they might be able to save your child. And what if you don't have the money to pay the kidnappers?
"Torture is only useful for obtaining false confessions" By using the word ONLY you make an incorrect statement, as proven by past history.
you said above "It is said that we got more information after water-boarding the 3 terrorist than the CIA/NSA etc as gotten using other means."
one source:
http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2009/apr/30/left-does-rule/
"And finally, George Tenet, Bill Clinton's guy at CIA, said that enhanced interrogation "was worth more than the FBI, CIA and NSA put together."
As for Obama, he is tripling the national debt, raising taxes on the productive, he went to Europe and only got one nation to take one prisoner from Gitmo and no increase in combat for the war in Afghanistan. He sided with the union over bond holders (who have legal rights) in the bankruptcy of Chrysler. He broke is promise on not signing bills without the people be able to read them five days. He signed a budget bill with billions in earmarks. He has given billions to GM and Chrysler, Fannie Mae, AIG. etc. etc. etc.
If water-boarding is torture, what should be done to all those who water-boarded American soldiers?
Many soldiers undergo water-boarding as part of their training.
I know of no example of anyone kidnapping anyone's children for anything but money, and in South America where it happens most, it is the rich kids that get kidnapped (so you don't have to worry if you don't have money), so there's a case for staying poor if you want to keep your kids safe if you live in Mexico or Colombia.
Secondly the Islamic religion prohibits kidnapping of children, in any case Bin Laden, the Taliban etc.,have never done so, children are sacred in Islamic religion... Al Qaida and the Taliban commit terrorist acts in retaliation for what they see as Western destruction, occupation and colonization of their holy lands and land, they will stop their terrorist acts when we stop corrupting and protecting their dictators. Bin Laden does not torture (there is no known account of that) we do (or did when Republicans ruled) thanks to Obama and his increasing control of the Democrats we no longer torture.
There is no evidence anywhere that torture has produced anything accept false confessions, so the word "only" is appropriate. Think about it logically if a terrorist plot is under way, by the time you capture and torture someone to stop the terrorist plot it is already too late, the tortured will first give you false information to stop the torture, when you find out the info he gave you was false and torture him again, it is too late because the people carrying out the terrorist plot know you captured their guy and they will proceed with the terrorist act before you can torture him again...the fact that they had to waterboard Abu Zubaydah 83 times proves this, the following is from Democracy Now
"A former FBI agent, Ali Soufan, who had interrogated high-level al-Qaeda suspects, testified at the hearing, but from behind a wooden screen to hide his identity. Soufan said the Bush administration’s so-called enhanced interrogation techniques were, quote, “slow, ineffective, unreliable and harmful.” In contrast, he described the less threatening interrogation method he had used on suspects, including Abu Zubaydah.
ALI SOUFAN: The interrogator uses a combination of interpersonal, cognitive and emotional strategies to extract the information needed. If done correctly, this approach works quickly and effectively, because it outsmarts the detainee using a method that he is not trained nor able to resist. The Army Field Manual is not about being soft. It’s about outwitting, outsmarting and manipulating the detainee.
The approach is in sharp contrast of the enhanced interrogation method that instead tries to subjugate the detainee into submission through humiliation and cruelty. A major problem is it—it is ineffective. Al-Qaeda are trained to resist torture, as we see from the recently released DOJ memos on interrogation. The contractors had to keep requesting authorization to use harsher and harsher methods.
In the case of Abu Zubaydah, that continued for several months, right ’til waterboarding was introduced. And waterboarding itself had to be used eighty-three times, an indication that Abu Zubaydah had already called his interrogators’ bluff. In contrast, when we interrogated him using intelligent interrogation methods, within the first hour we gained important actionable intelligence.
This amateurish technique is harmful to our long-term strategy and interests. It plays into the enemy’s handbook and recreates a form of the so-called Chinese wall between the CIA and the FBI. It also taints sources, risks outcomes, ignores the endgame, and diminishes our moral high ground.
My interest in speaking about this issue is not to advocate the prosecution of anyone. Examining a past we cannot change is only worthwhile when it helps guide us towards claiming a future, a better future that is yet within our reach. For the last seven years, it has not been easy objecting to these methods when they had powerful backers."
I trust Democracy Now because it is real journalism, you can tell real journalism when it criticizes holds accountable those in power whether left or right, DN criticizes Obama and the Dems even more than Fox, Fox never criticized Bush or Cheney, only Obama, Fox is thus not journalism but propaganda, the major corporate owned networks are not far from Fox when it comes to criticizing authority they too are mostly propaganda not news. These are the facts. A truly free press constantly criticizes authority whether left or right that's what DN does consistently, so you can trust what they report on torture.
And finally, George Tenet, Bill Clinton's guy at CIA, said that enhanced interrogation "was worth more than the FBI, CIA and NSA put together."
Cmon you got to be kidding, Tenet has already been discredited for lies and more lies about WMD etc, anything he says is suspect, he's a proven ass kisser, being a Clinton appointee means nothing Clinton hired lots of Republicans he caved into the banks and big corporations big time, Clinton was no liberal by any means except to get elected so he caved into the minorities and unions a little bit yet... he at least he was better than any Republican who cave in totally to the banks and large corporations even at the risk of destroying America...at least Clinton was loyal to America unlike the majority of the Republicans who want to turn America into a fascist state... so you would really vote Palin instead of Biden???for the Presidency cmon Biden may be too frank and honest sometimes but at least he's a good man, tries to do the right thing, Palin would start WW3!!! and we'd lose!!!! Can you really imagine her running out military or economy or healtcare or the FDA etc????
As for Obama, he is tripling the national debt, raising taxes on the productive, he went to Europe and only got one nation to take one prisoner from Gitmo and no increase in combat for the war in Afghanistan. He sided with the union over bond holders (who have legal rights) in the bankruptcy of Chrysler. He broke is promise on not signing bills without the people be able to read them five days. He signed a budget bill with billions in earmarks. He has given billions to GM and Chrysler, Fannie Mae, AIG. etc. etc. etc.
______________________________
You need to watch less Fox Joe your facts are all wrong, there's lots to criticize Obama for but the national debt is not one of them, that came from Bush and Cheney, Obama has to spend in order to save the economy though it's true he could do it much more efficiently by letting the bank fail, nationalizing them screwing the bank owners but saving the tax payer trillions, yet he can't cause people would scream socialism. He could liberate the banks latter with Glass Steagal and other regulations back in place.
He has not raised taxes on the productive but lowered them, he's only raised taxes on the crooks.
Get your facts right!!!
No increase on Afghanistan are you kidding what planet are you on???? He's worse than Bush here, here he's screwed up big time he should end both wars now!!!
Of course he sided with unions, unions are what made America strong and wealthy, built the middle class and strengthened human and civil rights. Even the fascist (he supported Hitler) Henry Ford knew that and said so, raising the salaries of his workers 10 fold so they could consume his cars.
He should have nationalized AIG and put their execs in jail or at least on trial for fraud and corruption.
As for the billions to GM etc that's a drop in the bucket to what Bush and Paulson gave the Banks
Yet Obama has done a lot of good too, closing Gitmo, saving America from economic collapse, ending torture, improving oversight over our food and drugs, fighting corporate pollution, stimulating the green economy, fixing our infrastructure...he has done more good in 3 months than Bush in 8 years or the last 30 years combined for that matter...tell me if in 2012 Obama has turned our economy around with new green jobs, ended both wars and closed our military bases around the world, saving us hundreds of billions per year, cut our debt in half from where it is today, brought in single payer health care, cut our military budget in half, reduced nuclear weapons around the world to zero, made higher education free to good students and much cheaper for everyone else, forced agri business to stop destroying our food and polluting our land and water with tough regulations, ended the war on terror and terrorism worldwide, convinced China to pollute less and ended poverty in Africa...all this accomplished by 2012 and he ran against Palin...tell me honestly who would you vote for?
The fact we water board our own soldiers does not make it acceptable or any less torture, it just means we torture our own soldiers which in my opinion is sadistic will do nothing to toughen them up to resist torture in the future anyway, this program is really stupid useless and sadistic in my opinion.
finally you never answered my question on how many others, family and friends etc you invited to comment on this blog, why doesn't anyone else respond???
I know of no example of anyone kidnapping anyone's children for anything but money, and in South America where it happens most, it is the rich kids that get kidnapped (so you don't have to worry if you don't have money)
- in fact there is a case now in AZ. It is supposed they were looking for drugs and did not find any. They took the child and there is no request for money.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101626
he has been found
http://www.sbsun.com/ci_12386079?source=most_viewed
Also, many children are kidnapped by pedophiles, how far would you go to protect your child from a pedophile?
-->Bin Laden does not torture (there is no known account of that)
http://www.newser.com/story/14537/torture-room-discovered-in-northern-iraq.html
"Coalition forces in Iraq have unearthed a blood-stained torture chamber north of the city of Muqdadiya, which the military suspects belonged to Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Troops stumbled upon a network of buildings comprising the torture room, three detention facilities and a headquarters. Forces also uncovered a mass grave containing 26 bodies."
Ever get tired of being wrong?
-->There is no evidence anywhere that torture has produced anything accept false confession
Among things stopped: Library Tower attack in San Francisco,
" The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.
Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”
According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”"
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/1347C96F-7A75-47DA-AC17-6BBB2CD014DB/
-> A truly free press constantly criticizes authority whether left or right that's what DN does consistently, so you can trust what they report on torture.
DN has a bias and does not report everything and will slant what it does report. Obviously it you only believe them you will never come to a logical conclusion. You must read all sources and discard the chaff from the wheat.
->Palin would start WW3!!! and we'd lose!!!!
And what is this based on?!!!! These are the kind of comments one makes when losing an argument, you are better than that.
->finally you never answered my question on how many others, family and friends etc you invited to comment on this blog, why doesn't anyone else respond???
some are aware, i invited no one, i assume they are just not interested.
Which is worse: death or water-boarding? I see you didn't answer the poll question.
Which is worse: death or water-boarding? I see you didn't answer the poll question.
I did answer I put waterboarding, though the answer could be death, I mean if your life is good and you live after the waterboarding with no mental or physical damage than waterboarding could be preferable to death, but if your life is miserable then death would be preferable to waterboarding...the question makes no sense???? Why ask such a stupid question???
->finally you never answered my question on how many others, family and friends etc you invited to comment on this blog, why doesn't anyone else respond???
some are aware, i invited no one, i assume they are just not interested.
You mean I am the only one you invited??? I remember getting an email asking me to join your blog you mean you didn't send that kind of email to anyone else, cousins, William, Tracy, John, Trevor, Spencer Philip Mike Pat etc????
Wouldn't it be more interesting if we had more opinions than just yours and mine??
I know of no example of anyone kidnapping anyone's children for anything but money, and in South America where it happens most, it is the rich kids that get kidnapped (so you don't have to worry if you don't have money)
- in fact there is a case now in AZ. It is supposed they were looking for drugs and did not find any. They took the child and there is no request for money.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101626
he has been found
http://www.sbsun.com/ci_12386079?source=most_viewed
Also, many children are kidnapped by pedophiles, how far would you go to protect your child from a paedophile?
Joe, the following is cut out from the article you linked to...
"They know who they're going after. I think they have a list," Horan said. "These are kidnapping cells. . . . That's what they do. They do kidnappings all year long."
While the FBI wouldn't say what the ransom demands are, or how often they're paid, agents said money is driving the increase.
See Joe this proves my point from your article from a propaganda rag
Joe you said
Also, many children are kidnapped by paedophiles, how far would you go to protect your child from a paedophile?
Well Joe, keeping my son out of the Catholic church is one way since many priests are paedophiles...another way is demanding that our government spend more of our tax dollars on finding out why paedophiles are the way they are and research ways to cure them and prevent them from becoming paedophiles in the first place...my guess is it has something to do with the way they were raised, bad parents, no parents. Of course from a human standpoint if a paedophile ever approached my son or even a friend of my son I would turn them in and if that didn't work I would hire some thugs and have him neutered even if it was a priest. Yet as a society we need to treat paedophilia as a mental disease and try to prevent it and keep known paedophiles in high security psychiatric hospitals until they can be cured!!! That's a better use of our tax dollars than bombing iraqi and afghan villages which I must say Obama and Democrats disappoints me greatly on his and their continuation of this Republican policy of war and more war costing us trillions in tax dollars not to mention the immorality of it all and doing nothing to protect us from terrorism but on the contrary increasing the likelihood of more terrorism against us!!!
Joe you said
"DN has a bias and does not report everything and will slant what it does report."
Can you give even one example of that? It seems I've asked you this before and you keep coming up with nothing...if you watch DN now you can see how they criticize authority even though the authority is now Democrat, they are the only one criticizing Obama's policy failures like not pushing for single payer health care and ending these enormously costly wars?
>Palin would start WW3!!! and we'd lose!!!!
And what is this based on?!!!! These are the kind of comments one makes when losing an argument, you are better than that.
___________
Joe did you watch the Katie Curic interview? Do you want someone like that with the keys to the H-Bomb...you Republicans are so naive!!!
-->There is no evidence anywhere that torture has produced anything accept false confession
Among things stopped: Library Tower attack in San Francisco,
" The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.
Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”
According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”"
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/1347C96F-7A75-47DA-AC17-6BBB2CD014DB/
Cmon on Joe you get your info from clipmarks???...none of what you say above can be confirmed to be true their are no names, videos, nothing to fact check...for the moment it is just unverifiable statements from unknowns....look at it from a common sense point of view they had to waterboard Kalid 183 times to get him to admit he was the mastermind behind 9/11 , or anything else, or maybe they wanted a string of false confessions or maybe they wanted to make sure he was brain dead so he would not reveal that he worked in concert with the ultra secret and dark organizations of some private Blackwater type CIA run by Bush and Cheney and perhaps the Mossad as well...who knows...anyway it seems very strange to me that you have to waterboard someone so many times unless you want to destroy their brain and shut them up forever so they won't one day reveal the truth!! You need to be less naive Joe on accepting as truth anything people in authority say...and think for yourself and ask yourself...does this really make sense?
Remember Joe who you are, you are not one of the rich elite who benefit from war, banking fraud, pollution, etc...you are one of the common people, middle class that benefit from free health care and higher education, good working conditions and higher salary, good oversight and tough regulation of banks and Food processing...you are not on the inside but on the outside, fight for your interests not for those who are trying to tax the middle class death with hidden taxes like war, costly education and costly health care...you need to look at the big picture and not allow yourself to be brainwashed by Fox Limbaugh etc who make big bucks off of Naive people like you...DN is non profit and independent fighting for the people, to make this world a better place for our children....why is it so hard for you to understand that?
Finally you never answered my question above
"...tell me if in 2012 Obama has turned our economy around with new green jobs, ended both wars and closed our military bases around the world, saving us hundreds of billions per year, cut our debt in half from where it is today, brought in single payer health care, cut our military budget in half, reduced nuclear weapons around the world to zero, made higher education free to good students and much cheaper for everyone else, forced agri business to stop destroying our food and polluting our land and water with tough regulations, ended the war on terror and terrorism worldwide, convinced China to pollute less and ended poverty in Africa...all this accomplished by 2012 and he ran against Palin...tell me honestly who would you vote for?"
I said: "You might have heard I started a blog. I would ask you should you wish to comment, please refrain from profanity."
Not exactly an invite.
Wouldn't it be more interesting if we had more opinions than just yours and mine??
Yes, but you insulted the one other person replying and they stopped. If you wish to tell others about this, feel free to do so. But most people are not interested for more than a few minutes.
So basically if you knew someone had you child and the police couldn't do anything about because they don't have the legal authority, but you knew a person who has information that could save your child, you would do nothing?
Joe did you watch the Katie Curic interview? Do you want someone like that with the keys to the H-Bomb...you Republicans are so naive!!!
- And what specifically did she say that would make you say that?
As for DN, if you ever watched something like Fox News, you would see how much they "leave" out. Anyone can make a good argument if they audience doesn't know all the facts. The DN audience all have liberal biases and only want to hear that which supports their arguments and say everyone is lying.
"reduced nuclear weapons around the world to zero" - so how is he going to do this without a military?
You are so misguided. The Chinese thought they could stop invasion by building a great big wall. The French build a "line" and stopped Germany from having a military. It took Hitler only a few years to build the greatest fighting force on Earth.
If Obama did all that you pondered he would be worthy over another four years. But your statement just shows how extreme your expectations are.
How about http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1600806&page=1
"Al Qaeda's original plan for 9/11 was to use a fifth commercial jet to bring down the 73-story Library Tower in Los Angeles, the tallest building west of the Mississippi. But Osama bin Laden believed an attack on both coasts was too ambitious and put it off for six months, intelligence sources told ABC News."
There are many sources if you look for them. But whatever the source, if is not DN you say they are corporate stooges.
There were 183 pours of water.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/despite-reports-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/
-->but if your life is miserable then death would be preferable to waterboarding...the question makes no sense???? Why ask such a stupid question???
Lets see, John McCain survived brutal torture. I am sure he would prefer living. The reason why water-boarding works is the victim feels like he is dying and therefore gives up the information. Once you are killed that is it. I think any non-suicidal person would choose water-boarding. Death is extreme. Why the liberals are against capital punishment, they didn't say a word against Obama allowing the shooting of the Somalia pirates.
Joe, you are wrong on all points above: John McCain was the son of Admirals, a rich kid from birth and a graduate from West Point, he had a secure even promising future in the military, he was good looking too had plenty of girls and full of self confidence so why wouldn't he want to live, he is a poor example of someone who would prefer death over torture. McCain would obviously choose torture or waterboarding over death, in the hope one day he would be free (apparently he gave false misleading information under torture too again proving my point that torture does not work)...however someone who joined the military because he couldn't get a job, couldn't get a girl friend, or victim of divorce, maybe suicidal.. would choose death over waterboarding probably. Yet again the question is still stupid, why ask suck a question it makes no sense what is the purpose of this question???? To show that torture is preferable to death and thus should be acceptable? What is your point here?
Has for Obama shooting the Somali pirates, many liberals were against it, liberals think the Somali's are defending themselves against western oil companies killing their fish and polluting their waters and stealing their oil, etc...they pirate for the same reasons terrorists terrorize. It least that was the initial impetus for the pirating yet since then pirates starting doing it for money too since it turned out to be so profitable, just like much of terrorism is done for money today though not at the origin.
I said: "You might have heard I started a blog. I would ask you should you wish to comment, please refrain from profanity."
Not exactly an invite
Well Joe, if you didn't want to invite me to comment on your blog, why did you send me an email giving me a link to your blog? If you don't want me to comment anymore I'll delete the link to your blog, and that will be the end of me on your blog , if that is what you wish..but you say in your mission statement
"I STARTED THIS BLOG TO WRITE DOWN COMMON SENSE ANSWERS TO THE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. TO QUESTION AND/OR EXPOSE THE LIES AND PARTIAL TRUTHS OUT THERE. TO GIVE MY OPINIONS WHERE FACTS ALONE CANNOT SUFFICE. TO LEARN FROM OTHERS, TO EXPLORE NEW IDEAS, TO FIGHT HYPOCRISY. COMMON SENSE JOE."
You stated you want to learn from others and to fight hypocrisy, look at our politics from a common sense viewpoint...well that is what I am trying to do, when I see you don't understand something or see that you have been brainwashed by Limbaugh or Fox...I try to point that out to you, to help you think for yourself...look at their propaganda and hypocrisy with the eye of common sense...so you can vote better and use your energy and intellect for good rather than supporting evil and fascism... however if you wish to disinvite me it is your choice I will respect your choice, it is your blog after all.
Wouldn't it be more interesting if we had more opinions than just yours and mine??
Yes, but you insulted the one other person replying and they stopped. If you wish to tell others about this, free to do so. But most people are not interested for more than a few minutes.
If you're talking about that guy with a philosophy degree from Berkeley (which I don't believe is true,) who was spewing fascist and racist propaganda, of course I insulted him, who wouldn't? that's what blogs are for to say what's on your mind freely especially when the guy is spewing racist remarks.
I don't have the emails of all our relatives except for Mike's and Maryann's, Mom's, Dad's, Tracy's, and William's, whom I assume you've already invited...however I can invite whomever you want to your blog just send me their emails and I will invite them, however since it is your blog I think it is better that you invite them..but if you don't want to, just send me their emails and I will do it.
So basically if you knew someone had you child and the police couldn't do anything about because they don't have the legal authority, but you knew a person who has information that could save your child, you would do nothing?
_________
Of course not, why do you say that?
If I wanted to disinvite anyone I would just turn off their ability to reply. And while you and I are interested in discussing things, the others aren't. They are aware and can choose to respond if they like.
And what specifically did she say that would make you say that?
_________
It's more what she didn't say, she showed she had no understanding of foreign policy whatsoever...like the Bush Doctrine...she demonstrated an extreme lack of knowledge showing no curiosity, very dangerous for a world leader, just watch the interview you'll see it's obvious. SNL even made jokes about it.
What is your point here?
A soldier may risk injury/death to capture a terrorist for information. If prevented from getting information, the soldier will kill the enemy. So by preventing enhanced techniques you will cause more deaths. Which I guess is ok by you, since you think it is better than being water-boarded.
As for DN, if you ever watched something like Fox News, you would see how much they "leave" out. Anyone can make a good argument if they audience doesn't know all the facts. The DN audience all have liberal biases and only want to hear that which supports their arguments and say everyone is lying.
The DN audience is mostly college students, mostly ivy league elite types, Tedsters (www.ted.com), actors like Matt Damon, Cusak, Jolie, you know people who think.
People who think naturally have a liberal bias because they want the truth not propaganda and the truth these days seems to be more liberal than conservative...maybe that will change in the future, anyway I don't like the terms liberal and conservative..too vague, ambiguous and confusing..I prefer truth vs propaganda...DN tells the truth and leaves out all the entertainment crap cause they don't have time they get to the real news and analyse it in depth with experts in the know, not with pundits who spew propaganda for ratings or ex military and business execs who lobby for corporations...though DN will invite these guys to give the opposing view but usually they're too afraid to come on...cause when they do they usually get crushed with the truth. How many times have you seen Chomsky or Goodman invited to debate on Fox?
If I wanted to disinvite anyone I would just turn off their ability to reply. And while you and I are interested in discussing things, the others aren't. They are aware and can choose to respond if they like.
Ok but to whom have you sent emails to like you sent me? So I know whom you've already made aware of your blog?
What is your point here?
A soldier may risk injury/death to capture a terrorist for information. If prevented from getting information, the soldier will kill the enemy. So by preventing enhanced techniques you will cause more deaths. Which I guess is ok by you, since you think it is better than being water-boarded.
________________
You are brainwashed into thinking torture obtains information useful to saving lives...but there is no evidence of that, no concrete verifiable evidence, only hearsay from the likes Cheney, we have no videos, no proof, just statements from known war criminals and their lackys that torture works...most of the evidence from CIA officers and just plain common sense shows that torture doesn't work and in fact may prevent us from getting valuable information...remember the only terrorist attack in this country really happened, 911, wa on Bush and Cheney's watch. All the so called thwarted terrorist attacks since then are just hearsay, no proof, Cheney and his lackeys could just be telling lies again. We have no "proof" that torture works...each time we need to take someone's word for it...and all university research etc on torture indicates that it doesn't work...except for obtaining false confessions...that is it's only "proven" utility
"reduced nuclear weapons around the world to zero" - so how is he going to do this without a military?
You are so misguided. The Chinese thought they could stop invasion by building a great big wall. The French build a "line" and stopped Germany from having a military. It took Hitler only a few years to build the greatest fighting force on Earth.
If Obama did all that you pondered he would be worthy over another four years. But your statement just shows how extreme your expectations are.
___________
I know the question was hypothetical yet I just wanted to find out if a Democrat, like Obama , did amazingly good things that made the World a better place , if you would actually vote for him or her, even though he or she was a liberal and the liberal policies implemented actually worked better than the Republican policies of the past. I just wanted to know if you would actually go to vote for the liberal , not abstain, but vote for the liberal, especially if he or she were up against someone like Palin. So can I assume that you would vote for Obama 2012 in an Obama vs Palin race, if Obama ended nuclear proliferation and reduced nuclear arms to zero around the world, verified on a daily basis, as well as all the rest, economy, healthcare, education, all doing fine, better than under any Republican administration since and including Reagan...and Palin's platform was to restart nuclear arms race in order that the US could dominate the World, since we could build and deliver more bombs faster than anyone else...as well as deregulate the now heavily regulated banks and as well as put corporate lobbyists, like an oil exec at the head of Energy, a Monsanto exec at the head of the FDA etc....in that hypothetical scenario would you actually vote for Obama instead of Palin???
in that hypothetical scenario would you actually vote for Obama instead of Palin?
That is such a stupid hypothetical. Palin and Obama would not do either.
We have no "proof" that torture works.
- They captured a man who had plans on how to take down a bridge. Plans that only a trained engineer would know. Is that proof enough? If they capture the people planning the bombing of the library tower - is that proof enough?
-- Torture works. That is why it is used. Is it 100% accurate, no - nothing is. Is it the most efficent - no, as one soldier said under torture you get the location of a safe house, but under other methods he might also tell you it is wired with bombs.
-- That we used it only on three individuals -tells you something about those individuals. They were not going to give up the information by other means. It saved possible thousands of lives. In my scale of justice I go with the water-boarding 3 guilty guys versus allow a thousand innocent Americans die.
It was the weakness of Jimmy Carter that allowed the Soviet Union to enter Afghanistan. It was under Clinton that two embassy were bombed along with the Cole. The planning of 9/11 was done under Clinton. It was under Clinton that the FBI and CIA did not share information that could have prevented 9/11.
Joe you are wasting your time denigrating Clinton for me, because for me as with most "progressive" types Clinton was no progressive he was way too far to the right on all his foreign policy stuff and I disagree with almost everything he did. I define progressive as someone who believes all persons are equal under the law, whether American or Afghani, man or women, black or white, French or Iraqi or Bolivian or Russian or Chinese or Congolese...ALL human beings on this planet are equal under the law...the law being international human rights law defined at the UN, that all human beings have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not just Americans, that all people in the world want those rights if given the chance and proper education.
As a progressive I believe animals and all of nature have rights too and as the dominant species it is our responsibility to protect their rights. The higher the intelligence the greater the responsibility. This why animal factories in America and Mexico are abhorrent to progressives and probably the origin of the swine flu and many other diseases This goes for human beings as well, the higher the intelligence (or more accurately perhaps wisdom) the greater the responsibility to see to it that those born into poverty or to abusive parents or in abusive societies have every means possible to escape their unfair disadvantage at birth.
I define someone on the right, let's call them "degressives" as those who respect absolutely authority, whether right or wrong, whom need to be told by a higher authority what is right and what is wrong...degressives believe that God is ultimately responsible for everything, so if there is poverty in the world it's God's will, there must be some reason for it, if people torture it's God's will, God gave man the capacity to torture in order to protect himself from terrorists...who themselves are often other degressives who terrorize because they think it's God's will too.
Progressives tend not to be very religious. They follow the teachings of Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha and believe what they said makes sense but they don't believe those men were Gods, just very wise men. Degressives believe those men were Gods yet don't follow their teachings and interpret them like they want to , so they can justify their evil actions like torture or killing, the christian church against witches and indians, the taliban against infidels, etc...
Degressives prefer war to settle conflicts over land, water and other resources (as long as they personally don't have to fight, they prefer to own the property yet let the progressives fight for it), Progressives look for non-violent ways to settle resource conflicts, because they never run away from a fight, yet nobody likes to fight, except young boys.
Degressives tend to be cowards chickenhawks, they force others, through poverty, or police to do their fighting for them. Progressives believe that human progress and happiness comes from working together in community more than from Darwinian competition for domination which is more applicable to genetics and material evolution than to social or spiritual evolution. Progressives believe you can be spiritual and an atheist at the same time, they accept the right to believe in all Gods and do not force any particular God or religion on anyone else.
Progressives believe God may or may not exist, but if he/she/it does exist , it definitely has nothing to do with us, or it's at least deliberately leaving humans alone to do good or evil as we see fit. Progressives believe in science and the social sciences to understand our universe and ourselves and in technological and cultural evolution to make our lives more liveable and fun.
Degressives tend to need religion, Jesus camps, Mecca, Chastity, abstinence, church or mosque to be happy...they are often anti-sex, anti-sexual stimulation like the Taliban forcing their women to cover themselves...they are anti-nudity...that is why to force a degressive to be naked is torture to a degressive where it is nothing to a progressive. However piling them up into naked human piles is humiliating and torture if done to both progressives and degressives...however progressives never torture only degressives do.
Degressives believe that land water all resources belong to the first one who finds them or sees them or touches them, they believe in property rights based on what progressives see as spurious reasons...like "I saw it first" or "I got there first" or "I have the money and can buy it and you can't so it' mine"....progressives accept property rights based on hard work, creation, invention or any other means that improves or creates the property or resource for all including, future generations and above all that it does not damage in anyway the original property. Progressives believe the Earth and all its resources belong to everyone equally, it's only application of labor, conceded by the community, that allows individual property rights and that only for a limited duration to be determined by the community that conceded their rights of community.
Degressives believe if you "own" the property you can do whatever you want with it, that if you own a river you can dump all chemicals you want into it until the river is dead, if you "own" a mountain you can tear it up, etc., Progressives put limitations on property rights, it must be for the common good as the property belongs to all originally.
Progressives believe we should strive for free health care and higher education for all, that they are intrinsic human rights since it's possible, and that teachers and nurses should be paid correctly in a socialist/capitalist system ...Degressives believe that those who invest capital have more rights than those who invest labor and if only those who have lots of money have access to good health care and higher education, so be it.
Progressives tend to be Democrats in America and Socialists in France, Germany, Japan, India, Bolivia, etc... Degressives tend to be Republicans in America and Communists in China and Burma, and supporters of Military dictatorships in many countries around the world.
Carter was more progressive, thus a better President than Clinton who was a mix of degressive and progressive but in my opinion Clinton was more degressive than progressive, especially on foreign policy, furthermore the Russians would have invaded Afghanistan for their oil and gas anyway even if Reagan or Bush had been President at the time. I bet the Afghans will kick us out of there just like they did the Russians because the Russians and Chinese are supplying them with weapons just like we did during the Russian invasion. Obama is making a big mistake here and acting like a degressive instead of like a progressive...perhaps he's under pressure by our weapons and oil industries or perhaps he's really foolish enough to think he can stop terrorism this way (though I doubt it) or more likely he's staying in Iraq and amping it up Afghanistan for political reasons because he needs to convince a certain percentage of degressives in America, in order to win in 2012...yet this will backfire on him, it will be his Vietnam and you degressives will shout with joy when you can put a Palin or Bush or similar back into the white house!
Progressives get their news from almost all sources yet tend to trust more or feel closer to the truth sources like the Nation, the Progressive, Democracy Now, Bill Moyers, the Guardian UK, Le Monde and similar trust a little less the New York Times and Finacial Times, ye trust it some times
Degressives, don't look or rarely look at Progressive news sources above and trust almost blindly FOX, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck and similar for their news and analysis So coming back to torture in light of all the above, progressives see torture as a result of fear and protection of property rights by degressives, at it's core, and thus not justifiable or immoral.
Degressives create terrorism by their greed and then become afraid of retaliation by the terrorists they created , so out of fear they justify torture, if it can protect them from terrorism, yet they are too ignorant to know it doesn't protect them at all , but in fact creates the likelihood of more terrorism later.
So Joe, tell me if you agree with what I said above or if you have a different view on our world ...and if so, what that is...
the above is the way I see it from my observations and travels, do you agree with me or if your views are different, how do you see it?
by the way you never answered my question to whom you sent emails to, like the one you sent me?
When you say you are a progressive, are you aligning yourself with the Progressive party that believed in euthanasia?
I define someone on the right, let's call them "degressives" as those who respect absolutely authority
-- well, the right is usually considered "conservatives", which are highly suspicious of authority, which is why they are for "smaller" government.
I looked up progressive principles
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:BUjWG2HqdV8J:www.principlesproject.org/files/DeclarationOfProgressivePrinciples.pdf+principles+of+modern+progressive&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Do you agree with all of that?
http://www.conservative-resources.com/liberal-vs-conservative.html
Do you feel this is true?
[4] The differences between liberals (i.e. conservatives and modern liberals) may be summarized as follows:
Conservative
1. Natural law
2. Established institutions
3. Liberty over equality
4. Suspicion of power
5. Exceptionalism
6. Individualism
Liberal
1. Positive law
2. Progress
3. Equality over liberty
4. Benevolent government
5. Human Perfectibility
6. Community
Degressives tend to be Republicans
-- I know of no "Republicans" that are "Degressives"
Your use of degressive to describe Republicans is like calling pro-choice as femi-Nazi abortionists.
"all persons are equal under the law"
so does that mean you would have no problem if 1 billion Indians and Chinese decided to move to France to take advantage of the social-welfare system?
If you deny them, are they truly "equal"? At what level does their equally stop?
As a progressive I believe animals and all of nature have rights too and as the dominant species it is our responsibility to protect their rights
-- Nature has had mass extinctions in the past. Lions eat zebras, should we prevent that? Under what philosophy do animals have rights? Does the cockroach in your kitchen have the right to exist? How about the parasite that causes malaria? Do plants have rights too?
degressives believe that God is ultimately responsible for everything, so if there is poverty in the world it's God's will,
I know of no one who believes this. Does that mean degressives don't exist? Did not God give man free will and thus God is not responsible?
by the way you never answered my question to whom you sent emails to, like the one you sent me?
-no one, I emailed you because I thought Dad had told you of this blog and I did not want this blog to be deleted because of profanity used
So Joe, tell me if you agree with what I said above or if you have a different view on our world ...and if so, what that is...
I doubt you can find one person that would be defined as a "degressive". If you can, state the person's name and go through each each of your statements and find supporting data.
"Degressives, don't look or rarely look at Progressive news sources above and trust almost blindly FOX, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck and similar for their news and analysis"; that you combine NBC and Fox together is laughable. What are the "Progressive news sources"?
Carter was a joke as a president, IMO. In November 1979, Iran took Americans hostage and he did nothing. Seeing this the Soviet Union invaded on Dec 27, 1979, betting correctly he would do nothing.
When you say you are a progressive, are you aligning yourself with the Progressive party that believed in euthanasia?
________________________
I don't know of any Progressive Party, and if there is one it doesn't have any weight politically, and at this time there are only two viable parties in America so I am a Democrat since they are closer to my values than Republicans... I would like the Democratic Party to become more progressive, more in line with Feingold and Kucinich. What I am saying above is I see the people of this world more or less, mas o menos, to varying degress, either wanting to make this world a better place to live (less pollution, better food, better treatment of animals, less violence and war, free healthcare and education ending poverty...etc) things we normally should ALL want to strive for as "progressive" so I define for this conversation what I mean by progressive since Democrat Republican Conservative Liberal and other terms are vague and unclear... I guess I could say liberal but progressive seems to be a more accurate word describing my values...progressives are people who watch DN and think for themselves, that's why they like DN they don't have pundits, they just have experts, researchers, that give us their knowledge and insights and we progressives make our own decisions...they don't give Opinion, neither Amy Goodman never gives her opinion on DN, because DN is pure news and analysis of that news by experts, though she gives opinion in other venues when it is clear it is her opinion.
I don't know if I would be for euthenasia if that means the killing of old people, I am against killing any life...you would have to define what you mean by it then I could give you my opinion if I am for or against.
I define someone on the right, let's call them "degressives" as those who respect absolutely authority
-- well, the right is usually considered "conservatives", which are highly suspicious of authority, which is why they are for "smaller" government.
_________________________________
That's exactly why I use the word degressives instead of conservatives because since Bush the Republican party has spent far more than any Democratic party in history, and that historically has generally been the case... and all their spending goes not to programs which benefit us but rather to war and giving the rich tax loop holes they don't deserve creating a climate of fraud and criminality, destroying our natural resources our education and health care etc.
Progressives don't want to pay any more in taxes than the next guy however they do see utility and common benefit in pooling our collective resources for the common good. A "conservative" in my mind is some one who would limit the military budget to defense needs only not to bloat the military budget to war on behalf of the oil corporations so they can make more profit that they keep all to themselves and do not share with the taxpayers who paid for their wars. This to me is not conservative so I use the world degressive which seems to me more accurate. Ron Paul is a conservative Bush and Cheney are not and most Republican leaders are not, the Republican party has become the party of degressives not conservatives...with leaders like Cheney, Limbaugh, Palin, McConnell, Boener etc....People like Powell and Paul are conservatives (though not progressive) yet they are in the minority in the Republican party, today their values are closer to the Democratic party which today is much more "conservative" than the Republican party.
I looked up progressive principles
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:BUjWG2HqdV8J:www.principlesproject.org/files/DeclarationOfProgressivePrinciples.pdf+principles+of+modern+progressive&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Do you agree with all of that?
________________
Yes I do ....and you? What in there do you not agree with?
http://www.conservative-resources.com/liberal-vs-conservative.html
Do you feel this is true?
[4] The differences between liberals (i.e. conservatives and modern liberals) may be summarized as follows:
Conservative
1. Natural law
2. Established institutions
3. Liberty over equality
4. Suspicion of power
5. Exceptionalism
6. Individualism
Liberal
1. Positive law
2. Progress
3. Equality over liberty
4. Benevolent government
5. Human Perfectibility
6. Community
__________________
No, I do not, the above is vague hard to understand and poorly defined, what is "positive law" for example? the above is useless, it has no meaning...same for natural law it is defined in a myriad of ways depending on who is doing the defining...same for individualism, community etc these are vague terms that need to be defined precisely in the context in question, this is how degressives work they confuse because they know their actions are immoral so they look for justifications.
I don't like the word liberal because in Europe liberal actually means conservative..it gets confusing...let's stick with terms we define ourselves like progressive and degressive it is much clearer
as for Progressives preferring Equality over Liberty that is not true, progressives, at least all the one's I know vastly prefer liberty over equality, though they want both and believe they can have both...equality does not mean everyone the same...it means equal under the law for progressives...that justice is the same for everyone, not one system for the rich and another for the poor, etc.
As for liberty progressives think we should have a lot more liberty in America, Degressives tend to destroy our Constitutional liberties, especially under Bush, Fear kills liberty, Bush and Cheney and their lackeys (real degressives not conservatives) tried to instil fear in America, Degressives in general have tried to usurp our liberty with their wars for oil, their torture, their destruction of the economy etc.
Degressives tend to be Republicans
-- I know of no "Republicans" that are "Degressives"
______________________________
Are you sure? Bush, Cheney, Feith, Yoo, Rumsfeld,... many CEOs and top execs of military contractors, big banks and oil companies,... Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, O'Reilly, Murdoch and most of the pundits and reporters at FOX...the KKK and Neonazis...Palin....all of these people and the people that think like and support them are Degressives and they all vote Republican...you will not find one neonazi or Limbaugh follower in America that voted for Obama...
Not all Republicans are Degressives, Dad, Mom, maybe You, John, Trever, Colin Powell, McCain, many CEOs (though many have switched to Democrat recently since Bush)...however the Republican Party today is swimming with Degressives and losing all their conservatives to the Democratic Party.
Just like not all Democrats are progressives either...like those who voted not to fund the cloture of Guantanamo or those that voted to continue the occupation of Iraq, or against single payer healthcare etc, Obama is not acting much like a progressive these days in many ways but maybe he's got something up his sleeve , I hope so..
Your use of degressive to describe Republicans is like calling pro-choice as femi-Nazi abortionists.
_____________
No, not at all, I invented the word degressive (which is not a real word) to be the opposite or antonym of progressive...so as not to confuse with registered republicans , many of whom are good people or just maybe not in the party that really represents their values because they just don't pay much attention to politics...they call themselves Republicans cause they think it means they will pay less taxes and they don't realize that's no longer true and hasn't been true since Kennedy was assassinated. For me the day that the degressives murdered Kennedy was at the same time the day they murdered true conservatism.
all persons are equal under the law"
so does that mean you would have no problem if 1 billion Indians and Chinese decided to move to France to take advantage of the social-welfare system?
If you deny them, are they truly "equal"? At what level does their equally stop?
__________________________
Progressives would like to see the whole world under the French social welfare system (though Norway's is now far better than France's, so his Denmark's and perhaps Taiwain's and Singapore's too)
Progressives in China do not want the Chinese to move to France they want to put the French system in China..that is much more practical and one day they will....same in America progressives want a system that works much better like in Norway, they don't want to move to Norway.
Each Nation has to move at the pace that its people wake up and fight for their rights, to be equal under the law, freedom does not come easy as the degressives want to keep their power and money obtained immorally...that's why they change the laws to make immoral actions legal...like deregulation of banks or saying waterboarding is legal.
by the way you never answered my question to whom you sent emails to, like the one you sent me?
-no one, I emailed you because I thought Dad had told you of this blog and I did not want this blog to be deleted because of profanity used
_______________________
I'm surprised to hear your blog would be deleted if profanity used, I've surfed on other blogs, even major ones, where profanity in the comments is frequent and the blogs still exist...who would delete your blog? the FCA, Google? who has that power? it seems that's against our 1st amendment rights? Are you telling me the truth here??? Ps neither Dad nor Mom told me about your blog as a matter of fact I get the impression they don't like your blog after I asked them why they don't comment on it ever, Mom says she ticks the survey questions though...I would like to see both of them comment to understand their moral values better, but that's their business, I would like to see Tracy and William and others comment as well...would you like me to invite them to comment for you? isn't a blog more interesting the more people who comment on it?
all persons are equal under the law
if all person are truly equal is it not your duty to prevent their enslavement? would you favor France sending its military to Africa to free the people from despotic dictatorship?
should the oil of Iran and Venezuela be confiscated so that the poor can be fed in India and Africa?
_____________________________
No, that would be reviving colonization...however I'd like to see France pull out all of its military in Africa currently protecting their oil interests.
Its up to the people themselves to overthrow tyrannic governments like they did in Bolivia Venezuela Cuba etc...if the people in Venezuela don't like Chavez today they can vote him out, its a free country there, in Cuba they can have another revolution if they want to get rid of Raul Castro since its not so free...though getting much freer recently since Obama came to power...
stealing the oil in Iran and Venezuela through war will not feed India or Africa however building solar parks and wind parks there will.
When will you degressives learn war is not the answer to poverty???
As a progressive I believe animals and all of nature have rights too and as the dominant species it is our responsibility to protect their rights
-- Nature has had mass extinctions in the past. Lions eat zebras, should we prevent that? Under what philosophy do animals have rights? Does the cockroach in your kitchen have the right to exist? How about the parasite that causes malaria? Do plants have rights too?
_____________
Progressives believe all animals plants have a right to life but so do humans, unfortunately, humans need to eat animals and plants to survive , and unfortunately for mosquitos humans don't like malaria, however progressives believe that if you have to eat a cow or chicken at least let them live well until you kill them for food, better yet be a vegetarian, yet if you're going to eat meat at least buy organic meat and force the government to enforce strict laws so organic meat means something serious like not that it ate organic grain , but grass instead and that it was well treated and slaughtered with the least pain possible.
Progressives believe keeping your floors clean is a better way to avoid cockroaches then spraying the whole place with bug spray or ddt etc.
Progressives believe we should eliminate malaria and have no problem killing mosquitoes to do so.
In general progressives will make the extra effort to respect life as much as possible where as degressives look always for the easiest cheapest solutions not matter how much the animals suffer in the process or our planet suffers in the process, degressives are lazy and put personal comfort over respect for life, they are selfish and lazy. progressives rather it less meat pay more and cook more with the knowledge that the animal was well treated before killing it.
degressives believe that God is ultimately responsible for everything, so if there is poverty in the world it's God's will,
I know of no one who believes this. Does that mean degressives don't exist? Did not God give man free will and thus God is not responsible?
__________________________
Let me clarify that, I was not clear previously I admit, not all degressives believe God is responsible for everything, I think Islamic degressives believe that but I'm not sure, I believe some fanatical christian degressives believe that too but again not sure as I don't hang out much with degressive types. Furthermore I think some degressives don't believe in God at all but not very many, most degressives use God as a crutch from my experience and observations because they don't want to take personal responsibility for their immoral actions.
Carter was a joke as a president, IMO. In November 1979, Iran took Americans hostage and he did nothing. Seeing this the Soviet Union invaded on Dec 27, 1979, betting correctly he would do nothing.
_______________________
This is not true, Carter was a great President but unfortunately Reagan (not a degressive per se like Cheney but controlled by degressives as he wasn't that smart) undermined all of Carter's great initiatives like getting us off mideast oil and moving us to solar early on...as for Iran the Republican party made secret deals with Iran to purposely not let Carter end the hostage crisis his way so that Reagan could win the election...they secretly paid Iran millions of dollars to prolong hostage crisis until after the election...America would be much better off today had Carter been re-elected any progressive can see that but degressives are brainwashed into thinking otherwise. As for the Soviets Carter or no Carter they would have invaded anyway, its their back yard to far away for us to do anything about it except nuke them perhaps which Palin might just do if she were President. Carter would have armed the Taliban just like Reagan did I'm sure perhaps even more so further Carter would not have not made the mistake, after the Taliban pushed the Russians out, of not helping the Afghan economy he would have poured more money in there to keep them on our side, unfortunately Reagan did not do that. Reagan as you remember sold Iran arms in order to secretly finance is war in Nicaragua!! Your attacks of Carter just show your ignorance of reality...you're a victim of media propaganda...like are most degressives in the poor and middle classes!
I guess I could say liberal but progressive seems to be a more accurate word describing my values.
-- This is why terms mean something. A "progressive" in political terms now belongs to the Progressive party.
The term Left and Right is more unbiased. It is based on the seating arrangement in Parliament. Currently the extreme left (i.e those that don't have a seat, include anarchist, green party, animal rights activists, communists),next come socialists (who have a seat), liberal Democrats (currently in control), moderate Democrats, moving to the right moderate Republicans, conservative Republicans. Then you parties like the Libertarians who are both left and right depending on the issue. Unfortunately, the "Open Tent" policy, where politicians care more about power than standing by what is right has blurred the distinction between the parties. That is why who had leftist Republicans like Spector and Democrats who are more social conservatives than their Republican opponents.
I don't know if I would be for euthenasia if that means the killing of old people, I am against killing any life...you would have to define what you mean by it then I could give you my opinion if I am for or against.
-The progressive party was in the forefront on the euthanasia movement of the mental and physical defective and the sterilization of "lesser" people. The Nazis borrowed this idea from America.
they don't give Opinion
-ROFL, they give their opinion by determining what they cover and don't cover. I have seen enough of it to know that much.
giving the rich tax loop holes
-tax loop holes are favored by Democrats. That way they control how you act. Thing of all the deductions, mortgage, college, child, energy efficient cars, solar panels, etc..
Yes Republicans are also guilty. It is how all Politicians continue to gather campaign donations.
Many conservatives favor a flat tax, no deductions.
BTW, Bush was not a conservative.
degressive - is not a political term and I will not use it. They way you define it makes it meaningless.
Progressives in China do not want the Chinese to move to France they want to put the French system in China..that is much more practical and one day they will....same in America progressives want a system that works much better like in Norway, they don't want to move to Norway.
Each Nation has to move at the pace
- So basically you are saying the Equality under the law as long as it doesn't inconvenience you.
I'm surprised to hear your blog would be deleted if profanity used
- that is what happened to the Yahoo group.
btw, I don't care either way if you want to inform other people about this blog
degressive - is not a political term and I will not use it. They way you define it makes it meaningless.
________________
I don't want to use conservative cause I think many conservatives like Ron Paul , Colin Powell, Warren Buffet, Obama, Clinton, etc...are not degressives
Conservatives are against invading foreign countries in order to steal their oil, it is costly and immoral thus not conservative. Conservatives don't spend trillions of tax dollars on war and give enormous tax loop holes to oil corporations, and big agri-business that produces franken foods that poison, give diabetes and make obese the American people etc. These are what degressives do like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Palin, Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck etc...
Conservatives have a different point of view than progressives (or liberals if you prefer) but progressives can respect Conservative thinking like getting rid of the Agricultural Dept and the Education Dept as it is costly and perhaps not efficient, yet progressives disagree with that as they think we need some oversight to abuse and fraud no matter how inefficient it is, it's better than nothing and if we elect the right people oversight can be made efficient.
I like the fact that we have an opposition party and I would like that party to be made up of real Conservatives, unfortunately its not...since Reagan, Degressives have slowly but surely taken over the Republican party and the Republican party is now probably 90 percent degressive today since most of its conservatives have joined the democratic party or become independents or libertarians.
Degressives dominate strongly the Republican party today since almost 90% of elected Republicans are degressives not conservatives and people like Limbaugh and Cheney still have the major voice of the party.
_________
You say the way I define it is meaningless how so? I thought I was pretty clear on what constitutes a degressive. Let me try again
_______________________
Degressive: Someone who thinks authority at the top of the political hierarchy is above the law. Someone who values personal security over morality, falsely believing that immoral actions are justified in the name of security, for example torture.
Someone who his willing to accept the killing of thousands even millions of innocents, even children, to protect oil supplies or keep oil prices low or to prevent democracies in other countries from choosing socialism over capitalism.
Degressives consider degressive human life superior to progressive human life, for example degressives like the nazis thought white germans were superior to blacks, jews, gays etc. or degressives like the kkk or southern slave owners before the civil war until MLK thought all whites superior to all blacks , or like degressives in the military think american life is superior to iraqi life or vietnamese life....My Lai, Haditha...
Degressives consider their religion the correct religion and all others are false and "infidels" can be justifiably killed, like degressives in Al Qaeda or Iran or degressives in Jesus camps.
Degressives believe in harsh punishment for minor crimes like smoking marijuana or the poor stealing food during Katrina or for not paying a credit card or mortgage bill on time.
Degressives feel rich degressives like degressive bankers should not be punished for stealing millions from the citizens unfairly through corruption of gov't officials to degregulate.
Degressives believe in taxing the people to the hilt to expand and privatize their military and prison systems and police force etc...they like police states when they are in control. They think it is ok for a police officer to beat a person or tazer a person to death for something as minor as political protest or talking back or even for nothing at all.
Degressives believe animals can be tortured and forced to live in horrible conditions if it allows them to eat meat everyday cheaply.
Degressives don't care about destroying nature, our ecosystems if it impedes on their personal pleasures and comforts.
Degressives will not fight to protect their community but pay others to fight in their place in case of attack. Degressive will not hesitate to kill others or pay others to kill others inorder to steal their resources.
Degressives don't care about pollution if impedes on their comfort.
Degressives prefer propaganda to truth, they only want to hear what makes them feel good about themselves and their immoral actions. Degressives don't care that a third of the world's population is in poverty as long as they are ok. Degressive actions are largely if not completely responsible for all that is wrong in the world.
I could go on and on but I think you get the picture on what constitutes a degressive.
As you can see not all conservatives are necessarily degressives... so we need to distinguish between degressives and conservatives, Cheney is a degressive so is Bush, Ron Paul is a conservative...we can't lump them all together just because they are all Republicans.
Just like we can't say all Democrats are progressives because many conservatives have joined the Democratic party.
Of course most people are progressive at birth, it is human nature to be progressive given the right education but we become degressives out of fear or greed or poor social or academic or moral education or religion related abuse or propaganda/brainwashing/ false or unregulated advertising or laziness or some other human weakness.
I believe all degressives can become progressives with proper education and psychological assistance even people like Cheney but we have to be careful about letting degressives have too much power in business or government or in the justice system because they can be quite destructive to society like Hitler or Stalin or Cheney or Mao or Pol Pot or Limbaugh or Coulter or Saddam Hussein etc. It is up to the people to keep degressives out of power out of the police force out of the military out of the media, out of the food supply out of healtcare and education out of banks etc anywhere they can do harm. Yet this can only be done when progressives outnumber degressives in a democracy or when progressive get so fed up and they start a revolution in a tyranny.
I hope the above helps you understand now what constitutes a degressive. So we can now use the terms degressive and progressive, I think it makes things much clearer since both parties and many groups are comprised of both and conservatives are not necessarily degressives as explained above
I don't know if I would be for euthenasia if that means the killing of old people, I am against killing any life...you would have to define what you mean by it then I could give you my opinion if I am for or against.
-The progressive party was in the forefront on the euthanasia movement of the mental and physical defective and the sterilization of "lesser" people. The Nazis borrowed this idea from America.
____________________
could you please define exactly what you mean by euthanasia and could you please show the source that says the progressive party supports it and why the do...this sounds like propaganda at the root, I can't believe progressives would be for killing old people just because they're old and a burden on the health care system for younger people???? This sounds more like a degressive action
giving the rich tax loop holes
-tax loop holes are favored by Democrats. That way they control how you act. Thing of all the deductions, mortgage, college, child, energy efficient cars, solar panels, etc..
Yes Republicans are also guilty. It is how all Politicians continue to gather campaign donations.
Many conservatives favor a flat tax, no deductions.
BTW, Bush was not a conservative.
____________________________
Yes but the difference is progressives use taxes for education Health etc good use of our tax money, degressives use tax dollars for war , enriching corrupt CEOs of oil and banks etc...all people want lower taxes but progressives want some taxes for useful programs that little relative to war military and offshore tax haven legislation etc ,
they don't give Opinion
-ROFL, they give their opinion by determining what they cover and don't cover. I have seen enough of it to know that much.
____________________
Like any news organisation you have to choose your stories but that is why progressives like DN and degressives hate it, because DN points out the abuses of degressives in government, business etc, news the progressive citizen can use to root out degressives in power and hold them accountable for immoral and illegal actions.
degressives hate DN because it tells the truth about them whereas FOX, and to a lesser degree the other major corporate networks, make degressives feel good about themselves.
Degressives hate DN because it sheds light on corruption, graft, greed, pollution, usurpation of civil and human rights by degressive forces, in general it sheds light on degressive activity on a daily basis so progressives can become aware and combat it...that's why freedom of the press is so important and protected by our constitution our founding fathers knew that without journalists doing their job degressives would take over the reigns of power.
Degressive: Someone who thinks authority at the top of the political hierarchy is above the law.
Again, know of no one in America who this describes. Therefore your definition is worthless.
Degressive: Someone who thinks authority at the top of the political hierarchy is above the law.
Again, know of no one in America who this describes. Therefore your definition is worthless.
______________________
This describes Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Beck, Cheney, Bush, Nixon...Nixon said if the President does it its legal...Cheney said similar just Google you'll find plenty of citations where they think the President is above the law. Bush's signing statements, Bush's authorizing domestic spying secretly against the law etc...
Again, why would they get legal opinions it they felt they were above the law?
You are just incorrect, projecting your bias upon others.
Post a Comment