GeorgiaDon

I guess I'm still not getting the distinction. Seems like a thinly veiled threat to me, but I'll take your word for it that it's more of a hypothetical than an immediate sort of threat. Agreed that was at least a big part of the intention. So what qualifies as an oppressive government? To you (and for the record, to me also), if the government were to come into our homes and confiscate legally owned weapons from law-abiding citizens, that would be an act of oppression. However, how can taking people from their homes, schools, lives, and then shipping them off to fight and, in many cases, die in a poorly conceived "police action" (as the Congress never actually declared war), against the wishes of a majority of the American population (at least by the later years of the war), NOT be seen as oppressive in the extreme? National guard troops shooting unarmed (well, except for flowers) "hippies" who were simply exercising their First Amendment rights to assemble and protest is not "oppressive government"? Maybe oppressive government, like assault weapons, is something that people "know when they see it", except everyone sees things through the lens of their own beliefs and values. Your use of the word "hippies" seems slightly perjorative, but then again "Tankbuster" kind of implies you probably side with the militaristic perspective rather than peace/love/get high. Anyway, at least Ayers et al deliberately targeted buildings/facilities and not people (setting the bombs to go off at night, phoning in warnings so buildings were always evacuated), so they never killed anyone except themselves. The same can hardly be said for the government. (Just to be clear, I do not agree with or condone their protest methods. I'm just making a point about who was the "oppressor"). I wonder how an entire nation could be organized like that? I suppose if the government were to go completely off the deep end and suspend elections, round up all the guns (that they could find), round up and jail political opponents, then it would be obvious and there might very well be a spontanious national reaction. Mostly, though, I hear people whining about government using tax dollars to provide education or health care to "hippies". Is that "oppressive" enough to justify armed revolution? Better dead than European? Well, I hope you're wrong, and I don't share your level of concern, although the previous administrations obvious disdain for the constitution did make me wonder (a little bit) if they would actually give up power. You'll survive the "bend over, grin, and bear it", I'm sure, as I have the last 8 years. It's in the nature of a democracy that none of us get what we consider to be perfect leadership, it's always a compromise. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK, serious question here. You've made a very clear statement advocating resistance by force against elected politicians you happen to disagree with, should they cross some line in your perception of things. Every time discussion of the 2nd amendment comes up, someone makes a similar statement. So why is this OK, presumably it makes you a "true patriot" and all that, but when someone else of a different political leaning actually does take up arms to oppose a government they see as oppressive and unresponsive to the peoples will, they are labeled "terrorists". To be specific, why is Tankbuster (and others of similar persuation) a patriot, but William Ayers is a terrorist, and by extention Obama "pals around with terrorists"? I'm really curious about why you don't see Ayers as an "American patriot", since he actually did what you all threaten to do. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I like it!!! But I thought "Anvil's law" was: bulimia=thoughtful political commentary. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

As opposed to the Republican "I got mine, everybody else can go to hell" theory? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I voted for Obama, and I'm not at all disillusioned. I never believed the propaganda from the Bush administration about Iraq, to me it seemed incredibly obvious he (as in he and his cronies) were spoiling for a fight, and no concessions on Sadam Hussain's part would suffice to deter them from that objective. I certainly didn't agree with going to war in Iraq, it seemed at the time and still seems a senseless diversion from the legitimate concerns in Afghanistan. It seemed very likely to me that a McCain administration would have us at war in Iran and perhaps elsewhere before long. Obama is doing just as I expected him to do. He has set a timeline to wind down the Iraq conflict. He's listening to his generals about what is realistic, and making prudent adjustments. Of course the time frame/troop levels will have to be adjusted according to the situation on the ground. Only an idiot would leave US advisors in place without some level of troops to provide security. It may go faster, it may go slower, depending on how the Iraqis do with taking control of their own country. At least there's an end in sight for US troops. It was clear the neocons had intended for us to occupy Iraq essentially in perpetuity (as per the PNAC white paper). If the right-wing "America rules the world" nuts think Obama is moving too fast, and Pelosi et al think he's not moving fast enough, I suspect he's got it about right. Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney operated from a world view that facts didn't matter, only their "idealized" view of how things should be, so they refused to adjust their plans (for example, refusing advice to prepare for the post-active-conflict occupation of Iraq), and look how well that turned out. It's a refreshing change to have someone in office who can make adjustments while maintaining the long-term goal. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't think he was referring to the guards. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So you mean "free" in the sense that no-one has to help pay for it? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Nerdgirl, Maybe we need a new forum "Inquiring minds want to know" or something, for actual debate/discussions. It does seem that SC has been taken over by people who just need to rant, but have no interest in even reading, much less seriously considering, any contradicting information. As in: "I really don't care. Where do you jump?" Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hi Max! Well, for sure a little "craziness" adds spice to life. I wouldn't claim we know everything yet, far from it, so I guess I could still be surprised. Cheers, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't know how you feel about 43 one way or the other, so I'm happy to take your word for it you aren't a fan. I was actually poking fun at the notion of pulling one debatable sentence out of a large body of information, and then using that one sentence as reason to dismiss all the rest. A tried and true speaker's corner tactic to be sure, but not too useful if you want to have a reasonably intelligent/nuanced discussion. Wait, what am I thinking? Nuanced? Speaker's corner? Never mind... Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So when did big government ever leave? Do you think the last 8 years has been an example of "small government"? If you're going to screw up details like that one, maybe I should just dismiss everything you write out of hand? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, if they all had the same belief in a God who assumed the dominant indigenous life form, was subsequently executed to save them from their sins, and then rose from the dead, it would certainly get my attention. I'd make allowance for local preferences as to the mode of execution. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Given enough time and space, even very improbable events are almost certain to occur, as long as they are consistant with laws of physics and chemistry. Since (so far) we only have one planet where we know for sure life has evolved, we can't know how likely or unlikely it is that there is life, much less intelligent life, elsewhere in the universe. However we do know enough about the presence of suitable chemical precursors to make a reasonable inference that there is likely to be lots of opportunity for living organisms to appear, since the universe is a very big place. How often/under what conditions intelligence, and in particular technological civilizations can appear (since we probably would never have a chance to be aware of non-technological intelligent life forms), is an open question. But there's nothing "crazy" about believing that it is reasonably probable that right at this moment there is, somewhere in the universe, another self-aware life form, possibly wondering if we're out here. What is "crazy" (I think) is to believe that, right at this moment, we are all being watched by an invisible, undetectible entity who knows everything that ever has happened or ever will happen, and who makes things happen in the physical universe without leaving any detectible trace (not using any matter or energy), therefore violating all kinds of physical laws. That kind of "craziness" is called "faith", and it's perfectly acceptible to lots of people, but I can't see how that isn't crazy but believing in something that doesn't contradict anything in physics or chemistry is crazy. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Apparently your sarcasm meter is broken. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Looks like an excellent adventure. By the way I'm pretty sure photo 27 is Vancouver not Toronto, unless Toronto has recently acquired mountains and the Granville Street bridge. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Apparently it escaped your notice that I was mocking the statements of my Republican congressman, Paul Broun, who specifically compared President Obama to Hitler (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/11/11/broun_regrets_obama_hitler.html). To refresh your memory, I wrote: To which you replied: At which point I wrote: To give you the benefit of the doubt, it isn't always easy to remember who said what in these "conversations", with the delay between comment and response. However to claim that I "lost the argument" by reporting, or subsequently mocking, a very public statement by the politician who represents my district in Congress, seems lame to say the least. As to your objections to the plan: I guess we're reading different meanings into "sets a goal" and "believe that ...students should be expected to...". I don't see either statement as saying that such service will be mandatory. For example, I believe that it would be a good thing for all students to learn a second language, and I'd support a goal of making the opportunity to take relevant classes available to all students, but that doesn't mean I'd favor a mandatory test in a second language a requirement for graduation. No doubt you're more suspicious than I am about the motivation behind Obama's proposal. Taking your unnecessarily snide advice ("maybe you should have read the whole thing and not just the bullet statments. Reading really IS fundamental - you should try it sometime."), I find in the document the following: Clearly, the "requirement" refers very specifically to taking advantage of the proposed tax credit. In no way does it suggest that all students should be mandated to perform 100 hours of service. The quoted text wasn't hard to find, it immediately followed the heading "Require 100 Hours of Service in College:" in the document you linked. Either you need to take your own advice, or you cherry-picked bits and pieces to create a sinister intent where none was present. I'm not going to post the whole document here, but I think any objective reading of the plan will make it clear that "universal" means that some opportunity for public service will be available for everyone who wants to take advantage of it, and in no way does it mean that such service will be "mandatory". There are also proposals to ensure that organizations such as colleges and universities that accept public funds for work-study programs don't continue to use those funds to subsidize their custodial and food-service operations (by using work-study students instead of hiring janitors and cooks). There is also quite a lot in regard to the military, such as increasing the size of the standing military, improved training, an end to the "back-door draft", a new GI bill, and much more. Lots to consider on its own merits, without making up specious arguments to favor a political stance. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, let's see what's in this evil communist/Nazi plot: • Encourage national service to address the great challenges of our time, including combating climate change, extending health care, improving our schools and strengthening America overseas by showing the world the best of our nation. • Expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and double the size of the Peace Corps. • Integrate service-learning into our schools and universities to enable students to graduate college with as many as 17 weeks of service experience under their belts. • Provide new service opportunities for working Americans and retirees. • Expand service initiatives that engage disadvantaged young people and advance their education. • Expand the capacity of nonprofits to innovate and expand successful programs across the country. • Enable more Americans to serve in the armed forces. Oops, I stand corrected! Americans being given an opportunity to volunteer to help other Americans! (Nothing about "mandatory" in the document you linked). It doesn't get more evil than that! Are all the real (i.e. non-liberal) Americans are just too busy looking out for their own self-interest? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Our local idiot inmate to the House of Representatives, Paul Broun, picked up on a speech then-candidate Obama gave last summer, where he suggested that it would be a good idea to have something along the lines of the Peace Corps dedicated to national service in this country, and twisted it around to say that Obama wants to establish a parallel military to take over the country like Hitler did. So apparently according to the extremist Georgia contingent of the Republican party, national service=National Socialist Party, at least when its proposed by a Democrat. Anyway, as well intentioned as your suggestion may be, I don't think its a workable idea to put such qualifiers on a constitutional right. If you have to earn it, it's a privilege not a right. Many of the people who really don't care about anything other than themselves don't bother to exercise their right, so I suppose the point may be somewhat moot. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Careful, you'll get this moved to Bonfire with that kind of talk. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You know, if you keep barfing like that you won't be an anvil much longer. Another week and you'll be able to hide behind Paris Hilton. Or maybe inside Paris Hilton.

Yesterday I saw an excellent lecture by Ed Larson, who won the Pulitzer prize for his book, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. Amongst many other points, he raised an issue I have never thought of before. I had thought the main issue for Christian fundamentalists was over the literal truth of the Old Testament, and the Bible as a whole. However, he pointed out that Genesis defines a cornerstone of fundamentalist theology: that the world was literally perfect when first created by God, and it was subsequently corrupted in the Fall (as in, fallen from a higher level of existence, not the season) when Eve fell for the talking snake and ate the forbidden fruit. This (supposedly) defines humans relationship with God: we were given a perfect world, but because of human disobedience or whatever, we rejected that and thereby brought death, disease, and misery into the world. Evolution, even (or maybe in particular theistic evolution, the idea that evolution is real but guided by God) turns that whole theology upside down. Under theistic evolution, we started out imperfect (i.e. non human), and through evolution we are progressing to a more perfect (i.e. God-like) form. [note this isn't what I believe, I'm just recounting the argument]. This reordering of the relationship between God and Man is apparently why Christian fundamentalism, or more accurately Protestant fundamentalism, can't be reconciled even with theistic evolution. From the little I recall of my Catholic theology, it isn't so Old Testament-centric, and the conflict is less problematic. For my part, it seems obvious to me that evolution is as well supported as any Law in science. The 150 years since the publication of the Origin of Species has only added overwhelming weight and substance to Darwin's theory of the mechanism of how evolution works. Happy belated 200th birthday, Darwin. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Regulations without resources to enforce them are meaningless. Budgets for FDA food inspection have been flat or cut every year since 1972, while the number of food processors the FDA is supposed to oversee has grown, so now inspections are down by 81% compared to 1972 and most facilities are now physically checked less than once every 10 years http://www.cspinet.org/foodsafety/fdafunding.html. The USDA inspects only meat and poultry producers, less than 20% of the total food supply, yet its budget (for inspections alone) is about double the FDA budget. It's so bad that in 2007 the FDA tried to close 7 of its 13 food testing labs. Congress has blocked them from closing the labs, but didn't come up with any more money. The budget issues really follow from a "leave business alone to regulate itself", "any regulation is bad regulation" attitude that has prevailed for many years. No-one particularly likes paying taxes, but this is what you get when you underfund necessary services. The current outbreak may possibly have involved outright criminal activity, that remains to be proven, but for sure criminal activity is a lot more tempting if there aren't any police to catch you. Of course, if your mentality is that there shouldn't be any regulations, and the "marketplace" will correct these problems, I assume you'd also be comfortable with a lot more deaths/illness, with the survivors left to turn to the courts to try to get some financial compensation after the fact? Out of curiousity, how do you propose Joe/Jane Average Citizen even go about finding out who poisoned them in the first place (given the variety of foods we eat and the fact that, once you eat it, the evidence is likely gone), and then prosecute the case against a large (and likely well lawyered-up) corporation? Is financial compensation (about all the courts can do) adequate compensation for ruined health? How often do you personally pay private labs to test your food before you eat it? I agree the congressional hearings are a bad joke, especially since they created the opportunity for the problem in the first place with their budgetary priorities. And the CEOs have every right to take the fifth, the right to not incriminate yourself is just as important as the 2nd ammendment I think (all the rights are important). Of course they need to be held legally accountable for their decisions; if they are convicted I hope they rot in prison and are fed nothing but putrid moldy peanut butter sandwiches for the rest of their lives. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

True, but the real story (according to the Snopes article http://www.snopes.com/glurge/warner.asp) is actually better. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well obviously a groveling "can you ever forgive me" sort of apology would be unhelpful for many reasons. On the other hand "I'm sorry you're upset" is usually a tactic to shift blame to the other party, basically equivalent to saying I'll do whatever I please and however that makes you feel is your fault. As in, telling your spouse "well yes I fucked your sister, if that bothers you it's your problem", and then expecting the marriage to carry on as if nothing untoward ever happened. I'm sure somewhere in the US there is someone with the diplomatic skills to convey a message that we messed with Iran's democratically elected government, and as an unintended consequence they had to suffer under a despotic regime for many years, and we regret that it turned out that way and probably wouldn't do it again (whether or not we really mean that). The current Iranian leadership doesn't help the situation, but even there 1) the leadership is not synonymous with the Iranian people, to whom our message would really be directed, and 2) we also had a hand in installing to current Iranian leadership, by doing whatever we could to undercut the previous, much more moderate, leadership. At any rate, Iran is there in the Middle East, it has attained the status of an important regional power, and responding with "suck it up Cupcake" would just perpetuate the policy of the last 8 years, which has been neither successful or helpful. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Actually, Klinghoffer was murdered by PLO terrorists, not Pakistani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Klinghoffer). Not that getting the right country to blame is important or anything (as in, when attacked by a bunch of Saudi fanatics, retaliate against, hmmm... Iraq!). They're all just fucking towel-heads anyway, right? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)