All of the sudden, (when Michael is asked to provide some poignant opinion based on fact....."Michael Has Left The Building"
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:10 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > ROTFLMAO! > > Enjoy spewing your fallacy AND maintaining that pleasing vision of yours. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of > common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever > ineligible for public office. -- H. L. Mencken > > > > At 04:08 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote: > > Oh, so now you are gonna try and use some Socratic horse hockey on me? > > Give it a break Michael, I expect more out of you than that. > > > > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:59 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > <sigh> > Person A states, "X" > Your response? Person A is a poopeyhead and his writing is so bad (how bad > is it) .... > > INSTEAD try ... > > Person A is wrong when he claims X because of a, b and C. > > Chanting Poopeyhead or Moonbat or leftist or Republitard does NOTHING to > refute *anything*. Similarly, making empty, meaningless proclamations has > the same results. > > Regard$, > --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. > > -- > 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.
