Something Big Is Going On.

[jaybet]

Scatology? 

HazScat?

[tombogan03884]

Haz is a professor alright.. but it isn't in the "politics room"..

 

Haz and M'ette should be listed as "Directors of Research" they find so many of the interesting stories.

[ericire12]

Thank you guys so much! Now THAT clears up a ton of stuff for me.
I really do have a hard time sometimes sifting through all the cornmeal to find the weavels. (my grandma used to say that  )

And I also don't have a lot of patience sometimes to take the time to do it either.
 

M'ette-

This is a really great site that cuts through the bullshit and lets you know what any and every politician is really about:

http://www.issues2000.org

[JohnJacobH]

Thanks.  I am talking practicality and would rather pay for the fireworks.  There is something nice about spontaneous explosion via the US Air Force.  The effect of "shock and awe" is better received in the Arab world (a good read Saddam’s Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein). 

And equating Haz, you and I to the 9/11 fella's... well thems may be fightin' words.

All that aside, I detect a bit of, how to say, tin foil hat conspiracy in your tone (..."or so I am told."). Let a brotha know.

Methinks I detect a bit of, how to say, ad hominem in your tone for a mere statement of fact.

 * I have been told*,  is a simple truth. I must bring my knowledge and experience to bear on those details available for me to examine.

Now on the other hand,, from your point of view it seems you should pick a side and stick with it. 

Either the only effective means of communication is from a large centrally organized well funded effort (shock and awe) or a small band of under-financed but highly dedicated gung ho operators can have an impact far beyond their relative strength. You can not have it both ways.

If shock and awe is only feasible option then the 19 plane hijackers had assistance far outside their publicized capabilities. That is no tin foil hat, that is simple deduction.

On the other hand if you, me and Hazcat were on Flight 93 and made a decision this atrocity would not happen on our watch regardless of the consequences to others on board, (including the chiiiildren-- and acted on that decision are we heros or just a slightly different set of wackos?  Todd Beamer might not appreciate someone who referred to him as a tinfoil hat type if he were with us today.

Osama bin Laden issued a fatwah. If the United States refused to learn some manners in the Arab Tradition he would personally see to it some Arabs climb up our collective shoelace and bite us in the ankle. Hence September 11, 2001.

Ron Paul suggested what the CCW self defense community refers to as a PROPORTIONATE Response with his suggestion we match the fatwah with the Constitutionally permissible Letter of Marquee and Reprisal.

To wit(as an example):

 This Administration has learned of a  written threat (fatwah) against the United States from a group of unknown non-governmentally associated individuals.  I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to reserve a sum of $100,000,000 to be paid as a reward in increments or in total to those people who capture or kill any or all individuals acting in concert to carry out the terms and conditions of this fatwah against the United States or the citizens thereof.

Now if you wish to argue the merits of this approach, argue the merits, not the ad hominem tinfoil.

Best regards,

[JohnJacobH]

Down Range University...

Professors on staff:
Tombogan
Ericire
Brosometel
Twyacht
John Jacob

Speaking for myself you are most gracious and far too kind.  But do not stop. I always appreciate the good thoughts.

Best regards,

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

Methinks I detect a bit of, how to say, ad hominem in your tone for a mere statement of fact.

 * I have been told*,  is a simple truth. I must bring my knowledge and experience to bear on those details available for me to examine.

Now on the other hand,, from your point of view it seems you should pick a side and stick with it. 

Either the only effective means of communication is from a large centrally organized well funded effort (shock and awe) or a small band of under-financed but highly dedicated gung ho operators can have an impact far beyond their relative strength. You can not have it both ways.

If shock and awe is only feasible option then the 19 plane hijackers had assistance far outside their publicized capabilities. That is no tin foil hat, that is simple deduction.

On the other hand if you, me and Hazcat were on Flight 93 and made a decision this atrocity would not happen on our watch regardless of the consequences to others on board, (including the chiiiildren-- and acted on that decision are we heros or just a slightly different set of wackos?  Todd Beamer might not appreciate someone who referred to him as a tinfoil hat type if he were with us today.

Osama bin Laden issued a fatwah. If the United States refused to learn some manners in the Arab Tradition he would personally see to it some Arabs climb up our collective shoelace and bite us in the ankle. Hence September 11, 2001.

Ron Paul suggested what the CCW self defense community refers to as a PROPORTIONATE Response with his suggestion we match the fatwah with the Constitutionally permissible Letter of Marquee and Reprisal.

To wit(as an example):

 This Administration has learned of a  written threat (fatwah) against the United States from a group of unknown non-governmentally associated individuals.  I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to reserve a sum of $100,000,000 to be paid as a reward in increments or in total to those people who capture or kill any or all individuals acting in concert to carry out the terms and conditions of this fatwah against the United States or the citizens thereof.

Now if you wish to argue the merits of this approach, argue the merits, not the ad hominem tinfoil.

Best regards,

In today's situation its NOT an impractical solution. The internet gives an individual nearly the same capabilities as CIA, Which would have been a more cost effective method of taking out Saddam, 6 guys and some Barrett .50's or a multi division invasion ?

[brosometal]

Methinks I detect a bit of, how to say, ad hominem in your tone for a mere statement of fact.

 * I have been told*,  is a simple truth. I must bring my knowledge and experience to bear on those details available for me to examine.

Now on the other hand,, from your point of view it seems you should pick a side and stick with it. 

Either the only effective means of communication is from a large centrally organized well funded effort (shock and awe) or a small band of under-financed but highly dedicated gung ho operators can have an impact far beyond their relative strength. You can not have it both ways.

If shock and awe is only feasible option then the 19 plane hijackers had assistance far outside their publicized capabilities. That is no tin foil hat, that is simple deduction.

On the other hand if you, me and Hazcat were on Flight 93 and made a decision this atrocity would not happen on our watch regardless of the consequences to others on board, (including the chiiiildren-- and acted on that decision are we heros or just a slightly different set of wackos?  Todd Beamer might not appreciate someone who referred to him as a tinfoil hat type if he were with us today.

Osama bin Laden issued a fatwah. If the United States refused to learn some manners in the Arab Tradition he would personally see to it some Arabs climb up our collective shoelace and bite us in the ankle. Hence September 11, 2001.

Ron Paul suggested what the CCW self defense community refers to as a PROPORTIONATE Response with his suggestion we match the fatwah with the Constitutionally permissible Letter of Marquee and Reprisal.

To wit(as an example):

 This Administration has learned of a  written threat (fatwah) against the United States from a group of unknown non-governmentally associated individuals.  I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to reserve a sum of $100,000,000 to be paid as a reward in increments or in total to those people who capture or kill any or all individuals acting in concert to carry out the terms and conditions of this fatwah against the United States or the citizens thereof.

Now if you wish to argue the merits of this approach, argue the merits, not the ad hominem tinfoil.

Best regards,

Wow! I make a simple observation of communication and I get wacked with an ad hominem charge.  Your honor, I would like to plead not guilty.  Conversations such as ours are usually better in person and over a friendly adult beverage, however travel expenses would eat heavily into entertainment expenses so we are stuck with the written word.  If it isn't already apparent, I am a bit of a smartdonkey.  And while serious in my views, I usually impart them in a tougue-and-cheek manner.  I have found that while people may disagree with views I convey, the the lighter tone allows for an easier exchange of said ideas.  Hey, maybe I've been getting it wrong.  Let a brotha know.

Now back to the discussion at hand.  Here is the original quote in question (2 q's in that one).

"After all, just such a band of 19 blew up a few billion dollars of American real estate with little more than boxcutters for weapons on 09/11/01. Or so I am told."

I read this statement, innocent enough.  In a context of Ron Paul, I have to ask myself, "Why add the ...'Or so I am told?'"  When added at the end of a factual statement, it would lead some readers to think that this may not be a fact, but a manufactured "truth".  These were my thoughts:  Hey, its a freeish country the last time I checked.  Then my hamster started runnin' on his wheel and I added Ron Paul and truth and 9/11 and wha-la 9/11 truther!  As stated before it is a freeish country and you have the right to be wrong (as I may be).  This wasn't the main thrust of the thread so I mentioned it in passing in a silly light.  (I have never seen a 9/11 truther in a tin foil hat, but there is a nice website if the need should arise http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/index.html)  I, in no way, implied that Todd Beamer wore a tin foil hat.  If that is the impression I gave, I am sorry my sense of written humor is lacking, but I digress.

The option you stated for dealing with the present terrorist problem is a good one, but does not solve the problem completely.  No singular answer will.  The black and white of the options in you post do not reflect reality ("Either the only effective means of communication is from a large centrally organized well funded effort (shock and awe) or a small band of under-financed but highly dedicated gung ho operators can have an impact far beyond their relative strength. You can not have it both ways.").  We have a buffet to work with not a single course meal.  I appreciate the strict adhesion to the constitution.  As Tombogan put in his post, "The problem arises with the FACT that Jeffersonian democracy as perfectly thought out, and well grounded in the Constitution, as it was did not even work for  Jefferson."  I may be missing some of your argument, so please state your solution. 

One other thing:  You mention the idea of a "PROPORTIONATE Response".  I believe that when malicious intent is used in harming or killing American Citizens there should be a disproportionate response.  Make the cost of such act a terrible price, and if they wish to seek their 72 virgins dispatch them in a Sherman's-march-to-the-sea type of fashion.

[tombogan03884]

Machiavelli Said that when it is necessary to harm a man, you must harm him so badly that his revenge need not be feared.

[JohnJacobH]

I read this statement, innocent enough.  In a context of Ron Paul, I have to ask myself, "Why add the ...'Or so I am told?'"  When added at the end of a factual statement, it would lead some readers to think that this may not be a fact, but a manufactured "truth".  These were my thoughts:  Hey, its a freeish country the last time I checked.  Then my hamster started runnin' on his wheel and I added Ron Paul and truth and 9/11 and wha-la 9/11 truther!  As stated before it is a freeish country and you have the right to be wrong (as I may be).  This wasn't the main thrust of the thread so I mentioned it in passing in a silly light.  (I have never seen a 9/11 truther in a tin foil hat, but there is a nice website if the need should arise http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/index.html)  I, in no way, implied that Todd Beamer wore a tin foil hat.  If that is the impression I gave, I am sorry my sense of written humor is lacking, but I digress.

 

Well, my brotha from another mother, I am no forensic grammarian and I certainly have put in zero time with the CIA Linguistics unit, but when a smart donkey fills up not one but two written communications with ......

tin foil hat

9/11 truthier

hamster running on his wheel

and includes a link to a tinfoil hat website a brotha should be forgiven for the thought  he is in the presence of one big quacking ad hominem duck.

Your honor, the defendent's actions belie his words, the people ask remand.

Again, if you want to argue the merits, argue the merits, leave the donkey at home and teach the hamster wheels can spin clockwise as well as counterclockwise.

Try to avoid the both-ways argument though. The devil is always in the details and a proprotionate response does not necessarily exclude a disproportionate use of force.

Best regards,

[DesertMarine]

M'ette-

Here is a good no nonsense run down on Ron Paul and where he stands on the issues (Its an easy and quick read):

http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm


Here are the highlights:

 Ron Paul on Foreign Policy


      * Can't spread our goodness through the barrel of a gun. (Feb 2008)
    * We tax people to blow up bridges overseas then rebuild them. (Jan 2008)
    * Cut off all foreign aid to Israel & to Arabs. (Dec 2007)
    * Get out of South Korea and let two Koreas unify. (Dec 2007)
    * Bush humble foreign policy was hijacked into nation-building. (Dec 2007)
    * US must obey treaties human rights abroad. (Dec 2007)
    * Focus on the Iraq war and foreign policy. (Dec 2007)
    * Stop interfering with Latin America; talk & trade instead. (Dec 2007)
    * Empires usually end by spending too much to maintain empire. (Dec 2007)
    * Stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. (Nov 2007)
    * No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur. (Sep 2007)
    * Don't pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007)
    * Not US role to monitor eradication of legal slavery in Sudan. (Sep 2007)
    * Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty. (Sep 2007)
    * Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
    * Interventionism perpetuated by politician's false patriotism. (Jun 2007)
    * No foreign aid; no treaties that commit US to future wars. (Jun 2007)
    * Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
    * Bush mistake: ran on humble foreign policy; now runs empire. (Jun 2007)
    * Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
    * Avoid double standard--follow international law. (Jun 2006)
    * No nation-building; no world policeman; no pre-emptive war. (Jan 2006)
    * UN membership leads to impractical military conflicts. (Feb 2003)
    * Neutrality on Israel-Palestine; start by defunding both. (Dec 2001)
    * Policy of non-intervention, neutrality, & independence. (Dec 1987)
    * $140B to protect Europe creates competitive disadvantage. (Dec 1987)
    * Foreign aid helps dictators, not the people of aided country. (Dec 1987)
    * Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
    * Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
    * Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
    * Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
    * Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
    * Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
    * Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
    * Allow Americans to travel to Cuba. (May 2000)
    * Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)
    * Ban foreign aid to oil-producers who restrict production. (May 2001)
    * Sponsored bill invalidating International Criminal Court. (Mar 2003)
    * Sponsored bill to end the Cuban embargo. (Apr 2003)
    * Sponsored resolution to withdraw from UNESCO. (Jun 2004)



Basically a total isolationist....... If he had been in charge back when Hitler was around, then Hitler would have ruled the world and Paul would have just sat back and watched.



----> He also thinks 9/11 was our fault:
*9/11 resulted from blasphemy of our bases in Saudi Arabia. (Dec 2007)
*Suicide terrorism stops when we stop intervening abroad. (Dec 2007)
*We don't need any troops abroad--they don't help our defense. (Dec 2007)
*Habeas corpus always applies, even to Guantanamo. (Dec 2007) (That means that all terrorists have the right to a day in a U.S. court - Innocent until proven guilty)
*Governments orchestrate fear to throw their weight around. (Jun 2007)
*Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007)

You said it a whole lot better than what I can.