A question for the political Right

[Stray Pooch]

What is the place for intuitive decisions?

I think that a lot of important decisions are made by a lot of people with no real logic involved, hunches are played, gestalt's are felt , and distaste from subchontious reasoning is felt.

If one has a strong feeling that something is right or wrong , won't logic follow in the ruts that emotion leaves?

It's funny, Plane.  I am reading the book "Odd Thomas" by Dean Koontz and I just read a passage which seems to fit well (with a little forcing, perhaps) with that thought:

Most people desperately desire to believe that they are a part of a great mystery, that creation is a work of grace and glory, not merely the result of random forces colliding.  Yet each time that they are given but one reason to doubt, a worm in the apple of the heart makes them turn away from a thousand proofs of the miraculous, whereupon they have a drunkard's thirst for cynicism, and they feed upon despair as a starving man upon a loaf of bread.

A bit overwritten, perhaps, and definitely run-on, but this is a pretty good observation of human nature.

There are, of course, times when faith, intuition or instinct are more important than simple physical observation or the application of logical thought. It is not wise to reject one's deeply held beliefs or convictions in the face of a few seeming contradictions.   But when valid logical objections to intuitive conclusions are rejected out-of-hand without at least sober consideration, one crosses the line from faith to foolishness.  Again, one need not conclude that one's beliefs are false - they must only open their minds to the possibility that they are.

[Henny]

It's funny, Plane.  I am reading the book "Odd Thomas" by Dean Koontz and I just read a passage which seems to fit well (with a little forcing, perhaps) with that thought:

Just now? That is (IMO) one of the best Koontz books ever. Be sure to follow it with "Forever Odd."

[Stray Pooch]

It's funny, Plane.  I am reading the book "Odd Thomas" by Dean Koontz and I just read a passage which seems to fit well (with a little forcing, perhaps) with that thought:

Just now? That is (IMO) one of the best Koontz books ever. Be sure to follow it with "Forever Odd."

My wife is a huge Koontz fan.  She even wrote him for advise on writing once and the guy actually sent her a handwritten letter along with a list of agents, etc.  Class act.  She still gets his newsletter.

She hadn't read the "Odd" trilogy.  She has been too busy for  quite a while (and lacked energy).  But she just picked up all three of them (including "Brother Odd") and now she's got me hooked.

I had a Jimmy Buffet thing going for a while there, but I needed a break.  I was spending too much time in the Caribbean.  He's as fun a writer as he is songwriter.

But I really had just read that quote when I took a break and came on line. 

[Henny]

She hadn't read the "Odd" trilogy.  She has been too busy for  quite a while (and lacked energy).  But she just picked up all three of them (including "Brother Odd") and now she's got me hooked.

Wait a minute... did you say TRILOGY???

Sigh. I am so out of touch living here. I guess I'll pick up my copy when I get back to the States (about 3 weeks).

[Lanya]

I echo, TRILOGY?
I didn't know that, thanks.
  Koontz is good.

[sirs]

When you have such radical elements of the left, such as Rosie O'Donnel, Danny Glover, Michael Moore, appearing to be the mainstream of leftist thought

Two actors and a filmmaker? Seriously? It is interesting to note that you employ the same tactic as BT denounces in the previous post. Your definition of "radical" likely needs some work. In general, American "leftists" and American "rightists" are very close in overall thought.

You seem to have confused my referencing of the extreme elements (such as the "2 actors and a faux filmmaker") as examples of leftists.  I'm trying to point out it's the radical elements of the left, that appear to have co-opted much of what the "leftists" would have been the foundation of.  You seem to be referencing moderates who can lean both left & right, and who indeed are very close in overall thought

and you have such an active policy in trying to give more rights to terrorists trying to kill us

Specific examples of "giving terrorists more rights to try to kill us?"

(A) Again, I'm referencing the radical left, not "you" specifically, and (B) those would be the examples advocated by folks like Rosie and yes, even Tee, who not only support giving them the benefit of the doubt, when it comes to accusations of terrorists being held in places like Quantanimo, but actual rationalizations as to why it's justified for them to act as they do.  They're really just "freedom fighters", defending themselves against that evil imperialist pigs, the infidel Americans

So you agree with his initial premise that the decline in American culture is the cause of the September 11 attacks?

No.  Our being the infidels, the supposed source of all evil, who dare to not embrace Islam as the true religion of peace, and instead support those zionist monkeys of Israel.  That would be much closer to the cause of 911, than any decline in our culture.  If anything, it's not a decline issue, it's an incline issue, an incline in how in such a short period of time became the lone superpower of the globe, while Islam, who once dominated this globe, decided not to join the 20th century, and watched their global influence get completely wiped out.  They've got to blame someone.....so apparently it's us, and the Israelis

[sirs]

You are a fierce debater (by your implied definition) until you are faced with something that logically challenges you.  At that point you fall back on "I stand by what I said" because you have nothing more substantial than your own ego to support it.  By this I do not mean that you are unintelligent - far from it.  You may be intellectually lazy.  It's hard to come up with good arguments with some of the excellent debaters here and elsewhere.  That is unfortunate, but excusable - since the world does not revolve around our opinions and we all have real life responsibilities to attend to. 

OTOH you may be an intellectual coward.  You are so wrapped up in your own self-image as a liberal (or whatever image you have of yourself) that to admit you (and/or the many liberal sources you cite) are wrong would be intellectually traumatic.  If that is the case, I urge you to try accepting that the core values you completely believe in may be wrong.  It is liberating - and you do not necessarily have to conclude that they ARE wrong.  Just accepting the possibility opens the mind and enables the learning process.

The Bush administration is not evil.  It may be confused about moral priorities.  It may be diplomatically inept.  But it is not evil.  Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are evil.  Hitler was evil.  Bush is, at worst, a bad President .... At the very least, BT is correct in pointing out that encouraging such qualities in others while seeing no need of them in your own debate is at best hypocritical and at worst arrogant.

I know I tend to ruffle feathers when I speak of others, but at times I find it necessary, or at least compelled.  Case in point, as Pooch has both accurately & diplomatically referenced one of the more irritating trends that occurs from our dear Lanya.  At one time, way back when, I remember Lanya being a very devoted lib, lots of passion, very opinionated, but generally when shown the error of her thought process (such as being shown facts that refuted an opinion she had), she would consistently acknowledge where she was wrong, and it didn't take away from her liberal credentials in the least.  I admired it.  Kind or how I admire Js & Freak, and how I did admire H. 

But something happened along the line.  Perhaps its when Bush took office, and perhaps Lanya convinced herself that the election was stolen, despite the facts to the contrary.  In any case, now we get garbage like "Republicans want women to die of cancer", and she stands by it.  She stands by the Fairness Doctrine, while completely ignoring the pointed questions posed to her that demonstrates just how anti 1st amendment it is.  She stands by how Bush apparently also stole the 2004 elections in Ohio, because....well because more investigations were needed that would have apparently demonstrated how it was stolen.  She stands by how it was Rove, Cheney & Co who outed a Covert CIA agent, despite that it wasn't anyone from the Bush adminstration that initially leaked her name (it was Armitage at the State Dept), nor was she ever classified as covert by Fitzgerald, the lead investigator.  I even recall that when the Fitzgerald investigation was going on, it was asked by more than 1 person, that at the conclusion of said investigation, would she be content with the results.  I distinctly recall her referencing a "yes", in so many words.  Yet, now the investigation is over, and it's quite clear of her displeasure that justice hasn't been done yet. 

I'm not sure when or where her train went off the tracks, whether it's laziness on her part, or cowardice.  In any case, I miss the Lanya of old, who was a well intentioned and honorable lib.  Now, she's just sounding like a female version of Michael Moore        My apologies if this was an inappriopriate posting.  I just needed to vent a little

[_JS]

No.  Our being the infidels, the supposed source of all evil, who dare to not embrace Islam as the true religion of peace, and instead support those zionist monkeys of Israel.  That would be much closer to the cause of 911, than any decline in our culture.  If anything, it's not a decline issue, it's an incline issue, an incline in how in such a short period of time became the lone superpower of the globe, while Islam, who once dominated this globe, decided not to join the 20th century, and watched their global influence get completely wiped out.  They've got to blame someone.....so apparently it's us, and the Israelis

Odd. Islam has never "dominated the globe." And us being the only superpower probably depends heavily on one's definition of what a "superpower" is, and if the term has ever really had any useful meaning at all.

As far as I recall, bin Laden did not use Israel much at all in his discussions of September 11. Most of his ire was directed at the United States having permanent military sites in Islamic countries.

You tend to focus quite a bit on Israel, much moreso than al-Qaeda actually has. Why is that?

[sirs]

Odd. Islam has never "dominated the globe."

It wasn't a global power back beginning in the 6th century, during the Caliphate and again during the Ottoman Empire?  Ummm, ok, if you say so

And us being the only superpower probably depends heavily on one's definition of what a "superpower" is, and if the term has ever really had any useful meaning at all.

I think most folks & historians will conclude that at this time, the U.S. is indeed the 1 big superpower, though Russia and China would be right behind us

As far as I recall, bin Laden did not use Israel much at all in his discussions of September 11. Most of his ire was directed at the United States having permanent military sites in Islamic countries.

Actually, yes the former (which incidently also debunks the notion that his actions were because of our support of Israel, so I thank you for that concession), and slighty out of context to the latter, as our being present as non-Muslims on Muslim land, is consistent with the twisted version of the Koran that militant Islam is using to justify their acts of targeting and killing non-muslims.  So yes to the latter as well, but that it also fits the MO

You tend to focus quite a bit on Israel, much moreso than al-Qaeda actually has. Why is that?

Not really.  I think that's just a misguided perception on your part.  Israel's just part of the problem to Islamofascism.  They simply get more public ire from the likes of their members, but in actuality, it's any non Muslim that's the problem

[_JS]

It wasn't a global power back beginning in the 6th century, during the Caliphate and again during the Ottoman Empire?  Ummm, ok, if you say so

Considering that Islam did not exist in the 6th century, I'm guessing that it wasn't a global power then! The Caliphates are sometimes discussed as if they were vastly powerful, but they never really were. In fact, the first major split of Islam came over the calihpate (the party of Ali, otherwise known to us as Shi'ites). In reality the Caliphate became a source of struggle between the most powerful families in the Arab world.

The Ottoman Empire was powerful, but certainly not a friend of the Arabs. It also came much later in the history of Islam. The Ottmans began as early as the 13th century, but only became a force in the mid 15th century upon the capture of Constantinople. It was afterwards that they grew to be a powerful Empire, but by no means were they accepted by Islam as some sort of grand carriers of the torch of Islam. In fact, many of the Arab peoples despised and fought the Turks as did the Persians (check the Safavids of Persia, who were a strong rival to the Ottomans).

Also, check the Jalali Revolt to see how insecure the Empire was internally.

Around the beginning of the 18th century, the Ottomans began to decline and repeatedly fought wars with their major European rival, the Russian Empire.

So to answer your question...no, Islam never "dominated the globe." Yes, the Ottoman's were a strong Empire at times, but by no means represented Islam.

I think most folks & historians will conclude that at this time, the U.S. is indeed the 1 big superpower, though Russia and China would be right behind us

A sincere historian would probably realize how stupid and irrelevant "power rankings" are for nations at any point in history. Just look how well our "superpower" status serves us in Iraq. The same has been true throughout history. Giants fall, so to speak. Napoleon lost to a slave rebellion in Haiti

Actually, yes the former (which incidently also debunks the notion that his actions were because of our support of Israel, so I thank you for that concession), and slighty out of context to the latter, as our being present as non-Muslims on Muslim land, is consistent with the twisted version of the Koran that militant Islam is using to justify their acts of targeting and killing non-muslims.  So yes to the latter as well, but that it also fits the MO

Oh well, that clears it up! LOL

Not really.  I think that's just a misguided perception on your part.  Israel's just part of the problem to Islamofascism.  They simply get more public ire from the likes of their members, but in actuality, it's any non Muslim that's the problem

No offense meant Sirs, but your knowledge of Islam and history don't exactly lend you to be an expert (or a reasonable amateur) at creating these theories.

[Lanya]

Quote:
Sirs: <<I even recall that when the Fitzgerald investigation was going on, it was asked by more than 1 person, that at the conclusion of said investigation, would she be content with the results.  I distinctly recall her referencing a "yes", in so many words.  Yet, now the investigation is over, and it's quite clear of her displeasure that justice hasn't been done yet. >>

I don't recall saying I was displeased with the results.  I heard a lot of whining about money being spent on this and "no underlying crime" by Republicans, but I haven't heard Democrats who are unhappy about the results.  If there's a pardon, well, that will suck but it's still our justice system, working.  And if he's pardoned, then he will not be able to incriminate himself, so if new evidence comes to light,  he can't plead the 5th.

[Amianthus]

And if he's pardoned, then he will not be able to incriminate himself, so if new evidence comes to light,  he can't plead the 5th.

If he's pardoned and new evidence comes to light, there won't be a trial during which he will able to plead the 5th.

If he's pardoned, it's over. No more trials for him.

I don't recall saying I was displeased with the results.

It's more an implication thing. You keep on posting articles about it, many of which say that the investigation was not complete. And you agree with everything you post, right? You said that at one time.

[Lanya]

You may well be right about the 5th and a pardon.

I post articles about the fact that a prosecutor wasn't able to discover what really happened because someone obstructed justice.  That's wrong.  When it concerns a CIA officer's cover being blown, I think it's important and I post about it.   But the results of the trial itself I am pleased with.

[Plane]

You may well be right about the 5th and a pardon.

I post articles about the fact that a prosecutor wasn't able to discover what really happened because someone obstructed justice.  That's wrong.  When it concerns a CIA officer's cover being blown, I think it's important and I post about it.   But the results of the trial itself I am pleased with.

Was a CIA officer's cover blown?

Will anyone be accused in court of that?

[sirs]

No offense meant Sirs, but your knowledge of Islam and history don't exactly lend you to be an expert (or a reasonable amateur) at creating these theories.

Neither are your positions on what I'm thinking and why