Extracted from Thread

Kurgan Gringioni said:

On Feb 12, 6:27 am, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Off the treadmill? Hmmm.

Quoted message said:

Look, a long time ago I used to get into things with
Kunich. Eventually I realized there was no point. My
time has value. So I stopped.

Quoted message said:

Political threads are like that. No one ever changes
their opinion, 99.9% of the debate is just yammering
back and forth until one side tires or becomes bored.

<snip>

Dumbass -

I've actually seend a few people change their mind.

When it does happen, it is surprising.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Here are a couple of questions for Howard that might very well change
my view of his positions.
Lets establish a conversation point first though. We had discussed
human rights, and US support for people who violate them. I took, and
do take the position that in the absence of something better the US
should support people who aren't hostile to them, and work on the
violations from there. Howards position was that he would much rather
we never support people who violate human rights, and I could respect
that position.
That brings us to a longstanding thorn in my side that you probably
remember. It was in some of the early discussions on Gitmo, where
everyone including both Lafferty and myself agreed that it was a
disaster. Howard has frequently, and rightly condemned Gitmo and the
supporters of that policy. My problem is that I have never been able
to get Howard to condemn Castro's prisons, torture, summary
executions, and all the folks here on the left who support and laud
Castro. If he has done it, and I missed it, I owe him a huge apology
and will happily make it.
Another situation is more recent, but in the same vein. The Guardian,
of all people, have concretely tied Hugo Chavez to materially
supporting, and co-operating with FARC. The human rights groups are as
clear on FARC as they are on Castro, yet I haven't been able to get
Howard to criticize Chavez for this, or any of his other behavior they
cite as a serious concern.
The third and last situation is Howard's calling Israeli governement
folks war criminals and such. I can see where he gets that, and can't
disagree with a lot of it even, but I have been totally unable to get
him to apply the same labels to Arafat, and the leaders of the
Palestinian, and Pan-Arab groups that deliberately targeted, and
continue to target civilians.
Why aren't they also war criminals, and why isn't he calling for them
to be arrested too?\
It's not hard to find me condemning the right and left, and I have
stated up front that, at times I could subjugate absolute human rights
in consideration of National interest so I'm not perfect here. Howard
found that repellant of me. If his belief in human rights is absolute
where is the condemnation of those folks on the left who violate them,
and the condemnation of their supporters here in the US?
Maybe I missed the elephant in the room, if I have will someone
please point him out to me so I can apologize to Howard.
Bill C

Bill C said:

They both deliberately distort issues for a politcal purpose, Moore
provides more evidence for his points, and only those points, thereby
building a more credible seeming distortion.

Hmmm, the overall message of Fahrenheit 9/11 is that the so-called war
on terror is built on lies. I've heard you agree with that. He
provides facts that back that up. What's the problem? Where's the
distortion?

The overall message of his health care movie was that our current
system of health care is far worse than equally wealthy countries and
he provides facts to back that up. What's the problem? I think you
even agree with that thesis. Where's the distortion?

Bill C said:

This is something I've been giving a LOT of thought to lately. Every
independent estimate shows the violence down and security better,
right now. His "tour" was a joke though, and a grandstand stunt which
has been typical of his past behavior.

(info on "the surge" snipped)

You're talking again about what you want. How can you support someone
who straight up lies to your face about something so evident. His
tour was not a "joke" -- it's about people dying and him trying to lie
about the situation in Iraq.

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

They both deliberately distort issues for a politcal purpose, Moore
provides more evidence for his points, and only those points, thereby
building a more credible seeming distortion.

Hmmm, the overall message of Fahrenheit 9/11 is that the so-called war
on terror is built on lies. I've heard you agree with that. He
provides facts that back that up. What's the problem? Where's the
distortion?

Maybe you didn't see that most of the lies came from Democrats?

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

If you want about 20 more quotes ALL from Democrats I'd be happy to supply
them. I get the feeling that if the Democrats had taken us into Iraq you'd
have been as happy as ever with them. But since you can take potshots at
Republicans you're ready to back up moveon.org 100%

Tell me, are you one of those who think that 9/11 was planned by the CIA?

Quoted message said:

The overall message of his health care movie was that our current
system of health care is far worse than equally wealthy countries and
he provides facts to back that up. What's the problem? I think you
even agree with that thesis. Where's the distortion?

If our health care system is so broken maybe you can explain why essentially
every foreign leader and anyone with money comes to the USA for medical
treatments?

Bill C said:

Here are a couple of questions for Howard that might very well change
my view of his positions.

Still on the treadmill. Just sayin'.

I'm starting to think you *like* the treadmill.

Bob Schwartz

Bill C said:

disaster. Howard has frequently, and rightly condemned Gitmo and the
supporters of that policy. My problem is that I have never been able
to get Howard to condemn Castro's prisons, torture, summary
executions, and all the folks here on the left who support and laud
Castro. If he has done it, and I missed it, I owe him a huge apology
and will happily make it.

Howard's problem, as I understand it, is that you wont accept his
condemnation of Gitmo unless he also condemns Castro, [censored], Stalin,
Genghis Khan, Darius I, or some other random, irrelevant evil person.

It seems reasonable to me to say that Gitmo is wrong or bad policy,
explain your reasons, and leave it at that. Castro being Castro does not
affect that in any way.

It is this type of thing (re:Clinton era administration quotes) that
offers compelling proof that there is little difference between those we
label "coservatives" and those we label "liberals" in the US. You say
to-MAY-toe, I say to-MAH-toe. The actions are the same. Only the
political theater surrounding the actions changes.

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It is this type of thing (re:Clinton era administration quotes) that
offers compelling proof that there is little difference between those we
label "coservatives" and those we label "liberals" in the US. You say
to-MAY-toe, I say to-MAH-toe. The actions are the same. Only the political
theater surrounding the actions changes.

So let me see - if a group convinces you that we are in grave danger and
does nothing they are heroes and if another group repeats the same thing and
takes actions they are "liars"?

Don't you see a slight problem with the Democrats swearing for 5 years that
we were in grave danger from Iraq and doing nothing?

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Howard's problem, as I understand it, is that you wont accept his
condemnation of Gitmo unless he also condemns Castro, [censored], Stalin,
Genghis Khan, Darius I, or some other random, irrelevant evil person.

Howard's problem is that he doesn't CARE that Castro was 100 times worse and
that the information we have plainly showed that we had to take some sort of
action in the middle east or be the target of warfare forever.

Quoted message said:

It seems reasonable to me to say that Gitmo is wrong or bad policy,
explain your reasons, and leave it at that. Castro being Castro does not
affect that in any way.

Explain why Gitmo is "wrong or bad policy". We roughly treat prisoners who
are holding extremely important information and you're [censored]. Castro
murders 10,000 people in his prisons because he doesn't like their politics
and you're perfectly OK with that.

Bill C said:

Fred if human rights matter to you then they matter. If you condemn
one based on human rights, and take the "moral highground" how is the
other, just miles away and worse not a problem?

I express myself a lot more vocally about things done in my name, by
my government, or by entities that represent me (American
organizations) than things done by people I have less control over and
who I am less responsible for.

Fred Fredburger said:

Bill C said:

disaster. Howard has frequently, and rightly condemned Gitmo and the
supporters of that policy. My problem is that I have never been able
to get Howard to condemn Castro's prisons, torture, summary
executions, and all the folks here on the left who support and laud
Castro. If he has done it, and I missed it, I owe him a huge apology
and will happily make it.

Howard's problem, as I understand it, is that you wont accept his
condemnation of Gitmo unless he also condemns Castro, [censored], Stalin,
Genghis Khan, Darius I, or some other random, irrelevant evil person.

It seems reasonable to me to say that Gitmo is wrong or bad policy,
explain your reasons, and leave it at that. Castro being Castro does not
affect that in any way.

Fred if human rights matter to you then they matter. If you condemn
one based on human rights, and take the "moral highground" how is the
other, just miles away and worse not a problem?
If he said that, he thinks that Castro, on balance has been a good
thing, and is willing to stomach the abuses for the overall good I
could understand that. Many in Hollywood have, and do make that
argument. I disagree, but they're honest up front. Howard does
condemns my making of that argument for people we've supported. Castro
is as relevant today as Gitmo. Cuba is frequently cited as a
preferrrable alternative to the US by folks on the left.

Here's a bit on Hollywood and Castro:
http://tinyurl.com/3vc22

Bill C

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

Fred if human rights matter to you then they matter. If you condemn
one based on human rights, and take the "moral highground" how is the
other, just miles away and worse not a problem?

I express myself a lot more vocally about things done in my name, by
my government, or by entities that represent me (American
organizations) than things done by people I have less control over and
who I am less responsible for.

That is unless it's your wife and kids at risk. Then it would be a necessary
evil.

On Feb 12, 5:24 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:11:20 -0800 (PST), Bill C

Quoted message said:

They both deliberately distort issues for a politcal purpose, Moore
provides more evidence for his points, and only those points, thereby
building a more credible seeming distortion.

Hmmm, the overall message of Fahrenheit 9/11 is that the so-called war
on terror is built on lies.  I've heard you agree with that.  He
provides facts that back that up.  What's the problem? Where's the
distortion?

JT, I have said, and it's impossible to argue against that Iraq was
built on lies. Afghanistan, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda needed to be
dealt with. The information on that was solid, and what actions to
take was debated in the Clinton Whitehouse. There was no debate that
there was a serious issue, the debate was what to do about it. I fully
believe that Bill would've invaded Afghanistan if 9/11 had happened on
his watch. That's the real war on terror.

Quoted message said:

The overall message of his health care movie was that our current
system of health care is far worse than equally wealthy countries and
he provides facts to back that up.  What's the problem?  I think you
even agree with that thesis. Where's the distortion?

I want to make sure that I have solid documentation for you on this.
Offhand I agree our system has serious problems related to those in
the lower economic strata. I'm not sure I've seen any good proposals
to fix it though. Radical reform probbably isn't going to be
constitutional, and just adding a cabinet level bureaucracy on top of
what we already have is not going to fix anything in terms of cost.
I'll get back to you in more detail in a day or two, ok?
Bill C

On Feb 12, 8:24 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:25:01 -0800 (PST), Bill C

Quoted message said:

Fred if human rights matter to you then they matter. If you condemn
one based on human rights, and take the "moral highground" how is the
other, just miles away and worse not a problem?

I express myself a lot more vocally about things done in my name, by
my government, or by entities that represent me (American
organizations) than things done by people I have less control over and
who I am less responsible for.

Agreed JT, but I'm sure you would condemn his human rights record, as
do Amnesty and HRW. I'm not asking him to lead protests.
Bill C

Tom Kunich said:

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It is this type of thing (re:Clinton era administration quotes) that
offers compelling proof that there is little difference between those
we label "coservatives" and those we label "liberals" in the US. You
say to-MAY-toe, I say to-MAH-toe. The actions are the same. Only the
political theater surrounding the actions changes.

So let me see - if a group convinces you that we are in grave danger and
does nothing they are heroes and if another group repeats the same thing
and takes actions they are "liars"?

That's not what I said. If you were to ask, I'd say they're both liars.
It's the way human beings are: they lie. It's not always that big a
deal, sometimes it is. But they do lie, all of them.

Quoted message said:

Don't you see a slight problem with the Democrats swearing for 5 years
that we were in grave danger from Iraq and doing nothing?

Don't pretend 9/11 had no affect on foreign policy. You're not that big
a fool.

Tom Kunich said:

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Howard's problem, as I understand it, is that you wont accept his
condemnation of Gitmo unless he also condemns Castro, [censored], Stalin,
Genghis Khan, Darius I, or some other random, irrelevant evil person.

Howard's problem is that he doesn't CARE that Castro was 100 times worse
and that the information we have plainly showed that we had to take some
sort of action in the middle east or be the target of warfare forever.

Quoted message said:

It seems reasonable to me to say that Gitmo is wrong or bad policy,
explain your reasons, and leave it at that. Castro being Castro does
not affect that in any way.

Explain why Gitmo is "wrong or bad policy". We roughly treat prisoners
who are holding extremely important information and you're [censored].
Castro murders 10,000 people in his prisons because he doesn't like
their politics and you're perfectly OK with that.

Outstanding! You've made my point for me!

You've simply asserted that I agree with Castro. It is juvenile. There
is no basis for such an assertion outside of your own comforting delusions.

On Feb 12, 7:24 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:25:01 -0800 (PST), Bill C

Quoted message said:

Fred if human rights matter to you then they matter. If you condemn
one based on human rights, and take the "moral highground" how is the
other, just miles away and worse not a problem?

I express myself a lot more vocally about things done in my name, by
my government, or by entities that represent me (American
organizations) than things done by people I have less control over and
who I am less responsible for.

I don't recall you opposing afternoon training rides. LIAR!!! laughs

Bill C said:

Fred Fredburger said:

Bill C said:

disaster. Howard has frequently, and rightly condemned Gitmo and the
supporters of that policy. My problem is that I have never been able
to get Howard to condemn Castro's prisons, torture, summary
executions, and all the folks here on the left who support and laud
Castro. If he has done it, and I missed it, I owe him a huge apology
and will happily make it.

Howard's problem, as I understand it, is that you wont accept his
condemnation of Gitmo unless he also condemns Castro, [censored], Stalin,
Genghis Khan, Darius I, or some other random, irrelevant evil person.

It seems reasonable to me to say that Gitmo is wrong or bad policy,
explain your reasons, and leave it at that. Castro being Castro does not
affect that in any way.

Fred if human rights matter to you then they matter. If you condemn
one based on human rights, and take the "moral highground" how is the
other, just miles away and worse not a problem?

I'm saying that you shouldn't have to discuss every human rights
violation at once.

Personally, I EXPECT Castro to be an [censored]. If he's not, that'd be a
surprise. Saying Castro or Mao or Stalin violates human rights is like
saying the sky is blue. We all know it.

When the US violates human rights, that's a bigger deal to me because I
expect more from us. We're capable of better. Castro, not so much.

Quoted message said:

If he said that, he thinks that Castro, on balance has been a good
thing, and is willing to stomach the abuses for the overall good I
could understand that. Many in Hollywood have, and do make that
argument. I disagree, but they're honest up front. Howard does
condemns my making of that argument for people we've supported. Castro
is as relevant today as Gitmo. Cuba is frequently cited as a
preferrrable alternative to the US by folks on the left.

Here's a bit on Hollywood and Castro:
http://tinyurl.com/3vc22

Has Howard ever said anything like this?

My point is that people frequently make wild, though comforting
assumptions, about those who disagree with them. "If you disagree with
me, you are a [censored], Castro loving libtard! There, I've proven I'm
right!" See Tom's response to me in this thread for a solid example. I
don't pretend to have read everything Howard's ever written on RBR, but
your assertions that Howard supports Castro have that familiar look.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill C said:

Fred if human rights matter to you then they matter. If you condemn
one based on human rights, and take the "moral highground" how is the
other, just miles away and worse not a problem?

I express myself a lot more vocally about things done in my name, by
my government, or by entities that represent me (American
organizations) than things done by people I have less control over and
who I am less responsible for.

Thank you, that's very well said. It mirrors my own thoughts on the subject.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Explain why Gitmo is "wrong or bad policy". We roughly treat prisoners who
are holding extremely important information and you're [censored]. Castro
murders 10,000 people in his prisons because he doesn't like their politics
and you're perfectly OK with that.

Dumbass -

It has to do with what you want to be as a natioh.

One that rationalizes compromising one's ideals because the other guy
does it?

<rhetorical question> If your neighbor molests his kids does that make
it OK for you to do it too? </rhetorical question>

All the great war theorists, from Sun Tzu to Lidell Hart, put morality
first. It's the #1 rule of grand strategy because it maximizes your
friends and minimizes your enemies, before a battle is ever begun.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.