Oh, so now you are gonna try and use some Socratic horse hockey on me? Give it a break Michael, I expect more out of you than that.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:59 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > <sigh> > Person A states, "X" > Your response? Person A is a poopeyhead and his writing is so bad (how bad > is it) .... > > INSTEAD try ... > > Person A is wrong when he claims X because of a, b and C. > > Chanting Poopeyhead or Moonbat or leftist or Republitard does NOTHING to > refute *anything*. Similarly, making empty, meaningless proclamations has > the same results. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "The man who in times of popular excitement boldly and unflinchingly > resists hot-tempered clamor for an unnecessary war, and thus exposes himself > to the opprobrious imputation of a lack of patriotism or of courage, to the > end of saving his country from a great calamity, is, as to 'loving and > faithfully serving his country,' at least as good a patriot as the hero of > the most daring feat of arms, and a far better one than those who, with an > ostentatious pretense of superior patriotism, cry for war before it is > needed, especially if then they let others do the fighting." -- Carl Schurz, > April 1898 > > > > > At 03:53 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote: > > No Michael, I am able to think cognitively, and not just rely on cut and > paste posts from Crackpots and Moonbats. > > Again, "Let's Review": > > Do a little research, and you will find that the first paragraph is very > much misleading, and the sentence from the fourth paragraph is an outright > lie: > > Even leaving aside the obvious responses that his Al Qaeda sympathizers > would make, even patriotic Americans might have differing opinions, > depending upon the time period of one’s assessment. When the Reagan > administration found bin Laden and Al Qaeda useful agents to help rid > Afghanistan of Soviet military forces, American politicians took turns > posing with these "freedom fighters" for self-serving photo-ops. Their > combined efforts drove the Soviets from that country, and helped bring about > the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. For his part > in all of this, did bin Laden "deserve" having a statue built to him in > Washington, D.C., or a boulevard named for him? > > But when his usefulness to American interests terminated – or even became > hostile – he was quickly relegated to the character of "villain." This is a > tactic long predating Machiavelli, having been useful, in recent years, to > transform Saddam Hussein from Donald Rumsfeld’s smiling photo-op "friend" to > a linch-pin in the axis of evil; > > > > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:49 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Translation: I am not actually refuting anything, but pretty please accept > my fallacy spew as though it did. > > > > > > At 02:02 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote: > > There are so many mistruths, and prevaricate misleading statements in this > article, that I couldn't get past the second sentence in the fourth > paragraph. Not worth responding to any more Moonbats who don't have a > friggin' clue about what they are talking about!! > > > > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Jonathan < [email protected]> > wrote: What Did bin Laden 'Deserve'? by Butler Shaffer > Gabriela: And you believe everything the authorities tell you? Franz > Kafka: Well, I have no reason to doubt. Gabriela: They’re authorities! > That’s reason enough. ~ From the movie Kafka > My recent article on the U.S. government’s assassination of Osama bin Laden > elicited many favorable responses, along with a negative one that advised me > that this man "got what he deserved." The reader went on to ask "how dare > you imply that we owed him the ‘right’ to be captured and brought to > justice." How effortlessly we make our judgments when our minds are in the > default mode, and we need only parrot the words of those in authority! > The media has long been an echo chamber for the avoidance of independent > thought and judgment. It is easy to repeat the party line that the state’s > enemy du jour "got what he deserved" when one refuses to ask the question > "what does any of us ‘deserve’?" What do I "deserve?" Do you know what you > "deserve," and for what actions? From what set of facts do we draw when we > make such judgments about the conduct of others? I am neither a fan nor a > defender of bin Laden, but those who are so anxious to invoke "closure" as > an excuse for evading inquiries into the nature of governmental policies, > might ask themselves why they are so willing to embrace his murder. > > An answer to the question "what did bin Laden deserve?" depends upon one’s > perspective. Even leaving aside the obvious responses that his Al Qaeda > sympathizers would make, even patriotic Americans might have differing > opinions, depending upon the time period of one’s assessment. When the > Reagan administration found bin Laden and Al Qaeda useful agents to help rid > Afghanistan of Soviet military forces, American politicians took turns > posing with these "freedom fighters" for self-serving photo-ops. Their > combined efforts drove the Soviets from that country, and helped bring about > the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. For his part > in all of this, did bin Laden "deserve" having a statue built to him in > Washington, D.C., or a boulevard named for him? > But when his usefulness to American interests terminated – or even became > hostile – he was quickly relegated to the character of "villain." This is a > tactic long predating Machiavelli, having been useful, in recent years, to > transform Saddam Hussein from Donald Rumsfeld’s smiling photo-op "friend" to > a linch-pin in the axis of evil; to Muammar Gaddafi’s mercurial > foe/friend/foe role of convenience in American foreign policy. That most > Americans insist on remaining so dupable – if not outright stupid – as the > state plays out its games of "endless enemies" at their expense, is > remarkable. > What did bin Laden "deserve" in all of this? What do any of us "deserve" in > our dealings with one another? Is there any principle to which we can turn > to help us answer such questions? Do we "deserve" to be coerced, robbed, or > killed whenever someone with superior strength is able to do these things to > us? Is this the highest social standard to which we can repair? Have the > playground bully and the brutalizing parent become the "founding fathers" of > our "New World Order?" > If the defenders of state assassinations believe they have found a > defensible tactic for resolving disputes – or just promoting their own > preferences – should it become more widely available for all of us to > employ? If two neighbors have a long-standing dispute as to the ownership of > rose bushes along their property boundaries, should they resort to murder to > settle the matter? Do we not understand that the problem of urban > street-gangs is but politics on a different scale; that Obama’s drive-by > shooting in a house in Abbottabad differs from such a killing in > south-central Los Angeles more in terms of geography than substance? If the > political establishment is willing to embrace such methods as a way of > eliminating political enemies in foreign countries, should the same > practices be acknowledged as appropriate within America? Might we want to > rethink the "lone-nut-with-a-gun" explanations most of us eagerly swallowed > to explain the deaths of the Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King, Malcolm > X, et. al. as well as the failed attempts on the lives of Ronald Reagan and > George Wallace? > For decades, I have tried to discover whether there is some principle upon > which all people can agree to define the propriety of our actions; a > proposition that rises above arbitrary subjective preferences. > Politically-defined laws will not suffice, since the state – being defined > by its use of violence – exists to promote and enforce conflicts among > people. Neither have I found so-called "natural law" principles much help, > as their content seems to vary from one advocate to another. > > The one standard to which I am able to find a virtual consensus is this: no > one wants to be victimized. No one accepts that their life or other property > interest should be subject to trespass by another. Sadly, most of us have > internalized our regular victimization by the state, sanctioning such > predations provided (a) we believe everyone else to be so bound – the > vicious doctrine of "equality," and (b) if we are to be singled out for > maltreatment, that we be accorded "due process of law." > The idea that the military and/or the police – the enforcement arms of the > state – could undertake arbitrary and deadly force against any person, finds > support among most conservatives. This is why the market for flags and > "support the troops" decals blossoms whenever the emperor finds a new > "enemy" to attack. It is also why so many conservatives – and even a number > of so-called "liberals" – can get their diapers so knotted over the > suggestion that Osama bin Laden should have been brought to trial rather > than murdered. It is the same mindset that allows police officers to gun > down "suspects" without, themselves, being held to account in a court of > law. > Suppose a man is "suspected" of having committed a heinous crime (e.g., > sexually assaulting and then murdering a small child)? Suppose this man is > found and arrested by the police, who then take him into a back alley and > kill him? Did he "get what he deserved?" Would you raise any objection to > this – unless, of course, you were the suspect – or would you regard demands > for a public trial to be only a "loophole" that might allow him to "escape" > his punishment? Is a jury determination of "innocence" to be regarded as a > "legal technicality?" Is "suspicion" or "accusation" the equivalent of > "guilt?" Should "criminal procedure" classes in law school be required to > address such matters as "how to organize a lynch mob?" Should a Ku Klux Klan > Grand Dragon square off with an ACLU activist to debate the question "is > justice delayed, justice denied?" > Given the grisly history of lynching in this country – in which the race of > the victim was often all that mattered – President Obama who, regardless of > where he was born, has more melanin in his system than most Americans, ought > to have resisted the self-righteous impulse that has led some people to > respond to fear by pulling sheets over their heads! > Don’t you understand that if the bin Ladens of the world can be "brought to > justice" by government hit-men who, like their Mafia counterparts, then dump > the bodies into the ocean, so can you? Insistence upon state-defined "due > process of law" is no guarantee that the innocent shall not be punished, but > it’s an improvement over assassinations, torture, trips to hidden prisons > around the world, and the denial of habeas corpus. Jury trials often result > in wrongful convictions, but I’d rather take my chances with twelve men and > women with no sinister agendas of their own, than with decisions made behind > closed doors by the politically unscrupulous. Bin Laden "deserved" a public > trial for the same reasons you and I would. > > With each passing month, it becomes increasingly evident that the United > States of America – as a formal system – is about finished. The Constitution > has become virtually meaningless as a means of conducting the business of > the state. The "separation of powers" of the various branches of government > – which we used to pretend would limit the ambitions of each – has given way > to notions of "empire," with the president playing the role of "emperor," > able to start wars on his own motion (and without congressional approval); > to torture or imprison without trial, or order the assassination of any > persona non grata of his designation; to give away hundreds of billions of > dollars to his corporate friends; ad nauseum. Over many decades, the powers > granted to government in the Constitution – which, far from being limited, > speak of "general welfare," "necessary and proper," and "reasonable" – have > been given very expansive definitions by the courts. By contrast, the rights > reserved to individuals have been accorded very restrictive meanings. In the > treatment of bin Laden – as well as the continuing incarcerations at > Guantanamo – we see further confirmation that what we once thought of as an > inalienable right to a public trial is another illusion sacrificed to the > empty rhetoric of "national security." > Though the "United States of America" is in a terminal condition, "America" > – as a social system – may yet survive. America preceded the nation-state > and, if we can revisit the basic assumptions that underlay the "founding > fathers" efforts, we may discover why conditions in which peace, liberty, > and respect for life must take precedence over edicts offered by rulers who > smirk and strut as they demand obedience to their every whim. > In the course of such inquiries, we may discover why bin Laden – along with > every one of us – deserved to not be dealt with in such an arbitrary, > coercive manner. Institutionalized violence is the essence of every > political system, and is in the process of destroying Western Civilization. > But as secession and nullification enjoy an increasing interest among > thoughtful people, members of the establishment power structure may find > themselves regarded as the new "Red Coats." Like their predecessors – and in > the words of Lysander Spooner – they may then be urged "to go home and > content themselves with the exercise of only such rights and powers as > nature has given to them in common with the rest of mankind." > May 14, 2011 > Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He is > the author of the newly-released In Restraint of Trade: The Business > Campaign Against Competition, 1918–1938 and of Calculated Chaos: > Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival. His latest book is > Boundaries of Order. > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer236.html -- > > > *Freedom is always illegal!* > > > When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare > freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any > possibility of being free. > "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological > refuge of unthinking patriotism?" Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts > University -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For > options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit > our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and > moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking > news, and more. > > > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
