DebateGate

Quote

Where did I mention Democrats or Republicans?  Where did I mention either party could enjoy low standards?

You helped reinforce the template....GOP running on an apparently higher moral/ethical standard, thus when they fall from grace, they can be not just condemned individually, but by plausible design, party wide.  Dems don't have such a burden, do they.  And I'm afraid I haven't seen a peep to help refute that standpoint by yourself, since I haven't seen any condemnations of Clinton's actions, any condemnations of Rep Studd's actions, any criticisms of how the Dems handled either of those situations, from your end of the keyboard.  Would you like to clarify your position on those 2 individuals and how the Dems dealt with each?

In other words, I never once mentioned Democrats or Republicans. Apparently, according to you I "helped reinforce a template." That wasn't my goal and you read into what I wrote as you saw fit. I've even defended Hastert on this very forum, so I'm not going to defend my actions to you. I'll "condemn" whomever I see fit whenever I see fit to do so. I do not require your partisan demands for explanations.

There's $20 million that's safe from spending. They might as well place it in a fund and let it draw interest until the wars are "won." We can use it to help Iraq fund their secret police to keep law and order.

That's pretty much the definition of nearly EVERY DC Politician, Brass

Except George W. Bush, right?

Come on, you all can't get too high on those horses can you? Schadenfreude is human nature.

Also, it isn't strange to demand more from individuals who campaign on morality and values. It is a double-edged sword to use at one's peril. Most democratic countries have the same problem with politicians that use such a platform - John Major is an excellent example from the UK.

It is only logical. If I ran for County Treasurer on a platform of reforming the system for more transparency and using money legally and establishing more accountability - then I was caught in an imbezzling scandal - don't you think I should have been held to a higher standard based on my campaign?

The same is true for morals and values campaigning. You use it at your peril. If you campaign on it, then plan to go out and screw good looking young lobbyists whose bills go through your committee then yes, you are held to a higher standard based on your campaign. Tough, deal with it.

I don't even really want to weigh in on this, but I will.

Just from a rational viewpoint, do you honestly think that Hastert would hide a paedophile amongst the ranks of Republican Congressmen?

What could Foley possibly offer to make it worthwhile? Now, I'll agree that Foley is a worm. He's blaming alcoholism, an unnamed clergyman, and homosexuality for his own faults. It is like he pulled out a book of cliche victimhood.

Maybe Hastert got some bits and pieces and maybe he gave the guy the benefit of the doubt, but I just cannot see a scenario where the Speaker of the House knew everything and went out of his way to protect Foley. Why? It would be political suicide to save a weasel of a character. There's no Faustian deal here. Foley is no kingmaker. Even if you believe Hastert is a Draconian Machievellian Son of a Bitch I can't see an angle to be played here.

I know it is an election year and everything is political and everyone is fair game, but I don't see anything wrong with what Hastert said here. It is just party loyalty to offer yourself up as a sacrifice if you think it would do the party some good. What's wrong with that?

You got something against the quote I use in my signature? I found it rather interesting.

Came from an exceptional book as well.

To answer your question, has continuous war taken place?

You are attempting to set the terms for "racist", etc. Racism is derogatory comments, actions, words and so on against another race. To expand to include attitudes against another nationality, for example, is totally inaccurate and succumbs to the current political correctness in vogue today. This resetting of terminology, as is revisionist history, is continuing as the cultureal and political landscape is changing. This, however, does not means we have to "buy into" this transition.

Or, in this case making baseless accusations on others based entirely on the color of their skin and their national origin. It is still racism and not for one second do I believe that you don't wholeheartedly endorse the article you posted Professor. In fact, you still defend it. Once again we see someone hiding behind the skirt of "political correctness" - this mythical entity that supposedly keeps people from speaking what they really feel.

These Mexican immigrants are poor, uneducated, dark-skinned (they tend to face racism in Mexico too as with most Latin American countries where the lighter-skinned European/Spanish communities are far wealthier), speak Spanish, and mostly Catholic. The article is basically a standard extension of the "dirty Mexican" myth. It is no different than the garbage put out against the Roma people in European nations in the past. It is fear of difference, which is the essence of racism.

If you believe it, fine. But stop hiding behind "political correctness" or some other bull. Be honest and say you're a racist.

When were the Palestinians legal citizens of Israel, with loyalties to the Israeli way of life and its existance, with said citizenship abrubtly abolished?

1992 in the case of Sait Rhateb. Israel "reclassifies" some of her citizens often. Just as South Africa did with the homeland systems set up in the mid to late 1970's. Israel annexed the West Bank and all of Jerusalem, then took the sections they wanted for themselves, then wanted nothing to do with the populations they annexed.

So, for you it is perfectly acceptable that someone pays a higher tax simply because of their heritage? It is OK with you that individuals are "reclassified" arbitrarily on occasion and their rights change upon reclassification?

Israel destroys people's homes - literally. Moreover, there are beautiful state-owned suburbs where only Jews are allowed to live (Katzir is a good example) while Arab Muslims and Christians live in run-down slums. 80% of the poorest towns in Israel are populated by non-Jews (note this does not include the West Bank or Gaza). Less than 4% of the Government employees are Arabs, though they make up 16-18% of the total population.

Mayor Sandrov of Katzir: "It's the same in Bosnia, Serbia, the United States and Africa -- wherever there is mixing there are problems"

So I'll ask you:

Are these examples of a democratic nation? Do you consider South Africa to have been a democratic nation during apartheid?

Also I am waiting for answers to these questions:

Are you suggesting that Israel and America are both monocultural countries?

Was that what South Africa was doing, protecting their culture?

 

Just to defend history somewhat.

lifted U.S. citizens' travel bans to Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia

Looser restrictions with North Korea came as a packaged deal with better relations and recognition of the People's Republic of China from the Nixon administration. Cambodia was called Kampuchea at the time. Lastly, who cares?

pardoned draft evaders

You mean, he pardoned the people who were too poor to evade the draft by technically legal means. So what? How does that harm national defense?

also stopped B-1 bomber production

Because it was useless, expensive garbage.

gave away our strategically located Panama Canal

Gave it back to the Panamanians who we had fucked over for years. Moreover, the Panama Canal is useless for large naval vessels and everyone with a modicum of intelligence knew it.

to make a monumental miscalculation and withdraw U.S. support for our long-standing Mideast military ally, the Shah of Iran. ( Carter simply didn't like the Shah's alleged mistreatment of imprisoned Soviet spies.

No. Carter no longer could support the Shah, who had lost all support of his people. If you'd bother to learn just a little about Iran's history you'd know that. Even the middle class no longer supported the Shah. He was a ruthless tyrant who used the SAVAK to terrorize his people into following him out of fear. You don't get a free pass to lie. Carter supported many ruthless dictators, but the Shah was too public and had lost too much support at home. He threw huge parties as though he were a great Persian King, but without the SAVAK he had nothing.

The Soviets, (9) with close military ties to Iraq, a 1,500-mile border with Iran and eyes on Afghanistan, aggressively tried to encircle, infiltrate, subvert and overthrow Iran's government for its oil deposits and warm-water ports several times after Russian troops attempted to stay there at the end of WWII. These were all communist threats to Iran that Carter never understood.

An absolute lie. There was a moderate size socialist party in Iran that was something akin to the British Labour Party. The Communists in Iran were extremely small and never had any mass support. The Soviets barely kept an Afghani Marxist government in power, they had no false hopes pinned on Iran. The warm-water port excuse is an 18th century myth kept alive by John Birchers in the 1960's. It is bullshit and always was.

thought Ayatollah Khomeini, a Muslim exile in Paris, would make a fairer Iranian leader than the Shah because he was a religious man

Utter crap. Most people, including the CIA never believed that Khomeni would become leader. They misjudged the ability of the clerics and mullahs to consolidate power. Most thought the Ayatollah would create a Vatican City type state within Iran and also a papal type position.

Hezbollah was created as a response to the invasion of Lebanon. Suicide bombers have been around far longer than 1979 (check out some of the attacks the Vietnamese used as an example). Though the use of suicide attacks in the Lebanese war in the early 1980's was well publicized - including the bombing of the marine barracks under Saint Ronnie.

America (21) can thank the well-meaning but naive and inexperienced Democrat, Jimmy Carter, for a foreign policy that lost a strong military ally, Iran, and (22) put the U.S. at odds with a gangster regime that was determined to build nuclear bombs to wipe Israel off the map and threaten the U.S. and other nations. Iran also has a working relationship with al-Qaida, which also wants nukes. Care to connect the dots?

And just how long do you think the Iranian people would have allowed the tyrant to rule their country?

Here are much simpler dots to connect. Have you ever considered that Iranians can rally around anti-American rhetoric so easily because they know that we funded their oppression at the hands of a ruthless git for so long?

communism was on a rampage worldwide. In an unrestrained country-capturing spree, communists took over (25) Ethiopia, (26) South Yemen ( (27) located at the mouth of the Red Sea where they could block Mideast oil shipments and access to the Suez Canal), (28) Afghanistan, (29) Angola, (30) Cambodia, (31) Mozambique, (32) Grenada and ( 33) Nicaragua.

- Ethiopia became a "Leninist" state in 1974 - Gerald Ford
- South Yemen in 1970 - Richard Nixon
- Angola - debatable, they fought a Civil War from 1976 onward that did include a popular communist faction
- Cambodia became Kampuchea in 1975 - Gerald Ford, but mostly thanks to Richard Nixon
- Mozambique with FRELIMO in 1975 - Gerald Ford, don't you know anything about Portugal's history?
- Nicaragua was never Communist and was far better off under Sandinistan rule than Somoza's dictatorship.

Wow. 67% lies. That's impressive. Try picking up a book sometime. Or at least do a little fact checking.

No wonder a Republican, Ronald Reagan, had to vastly increase defense spending

By the mid 1980's defense spending was 4.2% of GDP. By your calculation Reagan reduced the total percentage spent. Oy.

I won't even touch the "winning the Cold War" garbage.

Democrats waffled (50) on Reagan's request for support of Contras who were fighting to stay alive and take Nicaragua back from Daniel Ortega's communist Sandinistas. Each month, the Soviets poured $50 million worth of Russian tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, Hind attack helicopters and munitions into that central American country.

According to the Mitrokhin archives the Soviets thought that Nicaragua was hardly worth investing in. The Cubans put the most money into it and that was mostly in the form of doctors and teachers where literacy rates were raised significantly and health care was improved drastically.

The Contras weren't "fighting to stay alive" they were terrorists in every sense of the word. They had been in Somoza's National Guard and continued tactics that included kidnapping, slaughtering villagers, theft, narcotics smuggling, etc. In other words, thugs. Just like the death squads in El Salvador, Argentina, Chile, and Guatemala whom we supported that murdered priests and nuns.

and defeated in Nicaragua

Actually the Sandanistas have been reelected since and look to be reelected again.

Years later, (60) a group of Russian generals were asked about the one key that led to the collapse of the USSR. They were unanimous in their response: "Star Wars." Gorbachev feared it would render the Soviets' nuclear missiles obsolete for an overwhelming first strike, and they could not afford to build the hundreds more that would be needed or hope to match America's great technical ability. (61) So Gorbachev threw in the towel after Reagan held firm at Reykjavik and refused to stop SDI research. Years later (62) Gorbachev said he didn't think it could have ever happened if Reagan hadn't been there.

In July 2001, (63) the U.S. military used an SDI missile launched thousands of miles away and flying at near bullet speed to blow a test missile out of the sky. (64) Democrats from Dukakis to Gore to Kerry all said this would be impossible and that missile defense would never work. They were all wrong. Reagan was right.

Sources?