Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Penske. Slave and the other Conservatives on the board:

Have you read the book Freakanomics? In the book the author demonstrates pretty conclusive evidence that Roe v. Wade (and the legalization and availability of abortion) led to the dramatic decrease in crime and murders from 1992 onward.

So the type of fetuses that were aborted were the unwanted fetuses. It was these unwanted fetuses if not aborted and became young adults that these were the young adult demographic most likely to commit crimes and more importantly murders.

In addition, when abortion became easily available (the proverbial abortion on demand) infantcide decreased dramatically. In other words when the amount of unwanted pregnancies were reduced the number of mothers that intentionally killed or negligently killed their children reduced significantly.

So woulnd't you have to say that the Roe v. Wade decision significantly enhanced the "culture of life" in this country by

1) reducing the amount of infantcides and negligent infant deaths

and

2) significantly reducing the murder rate.

Huh?

All the ones who would have died under #1, did, so no. As to #2, "demographically" figuring out who is likely to do crimes then proactively killing them is a bit out there, don't you think?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
T-Rex: How come you never responded to this:

"For some reason you think that it was important for Iraq to have WMDs to justify our invasion. I just don't understand that position. And do not use as an excuse that Bush used it as a reason. Bush used it to help convince those people that don't care about human rights abuses. For those people that look at at US foreign policy soleley in terms of US self interest - then yes - they would need WMD's as a reason to invade. But these same people also opposed Clintons intervention in Serbia. But if you supported Clintons acts in Hait, Serbia or Somalia then you have no reason to harp about WMDs because none of these countrys had them."

Why did we need WMD's to justify Iraq but not to Justify bombing Serbia?

WMD are not a prerequisite for military intervention. North Korea did not have the bomb when it invaded South Korea. But the Bush Administration chose to sell the threat of Iraqi WMD as the chief reason to invade Iraq for political reasons, which is why their non-existence was so important. Had Bush said, Hussein is a bad man and we need to get rid of him, or Iraq should be a democracy, so let's invade, then we would be having a different conversation. He said those things sometimes, but we all know what was going on. The State of the Union address is not usually used to give the American people bulletins about British intelligence about central African raw materials. Americans are much more willing to sacrifice themselves to defend other Americans than for these other goals. That is why we might have a policy of regime change, and yet not resort to invasion.

Are you really asking me to justify our military involvement in Serbia?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't understand your problem with my position. If you think I am wrong you must support one of the three following propositions:

1) We invade (or vigorously promote regime change) in countries where the regime is democratic but is destrying the country.

2) We invade (or vigorously promote regime change) in countries whose economies are growing but abuse human rights?

3) We don't invade (or vigorously promote regime change) in countriess whose regimes are abusing human rights and destryong the economy.

Which position do you support?

I do not think that a regime's poor human-rights policy or disregard for human rights necessarily justifies us in attempting to replace thier government.

[Penske_Account]

:drums: :partytime :rock:

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
:drums: :partytime :rock:

Careful. If we keep moving away from the normal workings of our government and closer to a dictatorship where 1 guy just makes decisions, Spank is going to want us to invade ourselves- Whoa!

Maybe if instead of this recess appointments we just do something like grab up Biden or Teddy and send them to cuba that would get our point across in a more co-operative style.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Careful. If we keep moving away from the normal workings of our government and closer to a dictatorship where 1 guy just makes decisions, Spank is going to want us to invade ourselves- Whoa!

Maybe if instead of this recess appointments we just do something like grab up Biden or Teddy and send them to cuba that would get our point across in a more co-operative style.

If Bush applies the same strategery to Iraq, he will declare victory and withdraw our troops.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
:drums: :partytime :rock:

And to fuel the administration's optimism for the organization, Bolton's been equipped with a bowie knife, some matches, 30yds of rope, a gallon of Kerosene, and the office numbers of the British, Polish, and Spanish ambassadors.

Now, muthafuckas, let's start some diplomacy.

[Gattigap]

FT's article on the Bush Administration's declaration of Victory on GWOT and move to SAVE unearthed this interesting quote.

• A former senior intelligence official who served in the Bush administration commented: “Conviction has been growing steadily and strongly here that we needed to come out of the tactical phase of this war and into a strategic phase which would include this outreach to the Muslim world and it would make sense to structure this some way with a couple of allies, particularly the French, who understand that world so well.”

No wonder that quote was on deep, deep background. "particularly the French"?? They find out who this apostate is, we'll hardly be able to recongize him from his dental records.

Gattigap

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
:drums: :partytime :rock:

Is it just me, or is there something - I don't know, what's the word - mincing about that look? Not what I usually think of for Dick Cheney, and NTTAWWT, of course.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Is it just me, or is there something - I don't know, what's the word - mincing about that look? Not what I usually think of for Dick Cheney, and NTTAWWT, of course.

What type of biased comment is that? That type of prejudiced hatred doesn't even deserve any more of a comment than a hefty F.U., although it doesn't surprise me coming from a political group that has a KKK Kleagle as its conscience.

The fact that Bush has trumped the liberal haters on this one hurts. The power of the mandate will not be denied.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
What type of biased comment is that? That type of prejudiced hatred doesn't even deserve any more of a comment than a hefty F.U., although it doesn't surprise me coming from a political group that has a KKK Kleagle as its conscience.

The fact that Bush has trumped the liberal haters on this one hurts. The power of the mandate will not be denied.

1. "Hefty F.U." in para. 1 is okay, I see where you're going, but consider if "hearty F.U." might be more along the lines of what you are trying to convey.

2. The phrase "liberal haters" in para. 2 is ambiguous. Are you referring to those who hate liberals, or to those liberals who hate? If the first, I suggest "Americans" or "patriots" or something along those lines. If the second, consider "hating liberals", or "self-hating liberals", "commie bastards", "weak-kneeded butt-lickers of cheese-eating surrender monkeys", etc.

Other than that, good work! Your development as a writer is coming along well.

[Gattigap]

Spanky,

Investigating the Spanky Unified Theory of Free Markets, Human Rights and Regime Change a bit further, I was curious about the current Knock Over/Don't Knock Over verdict on Iran.

* Human Rights problems? Definitely. Check.

* Economy growing? Probably. I can't recall the numbers offhand, but I vaguely remember reading about Iran's youth drinking from the firehose of Western culture, so there's probably more cash there.

* Free Markets? Oh, hell no. Check.

* Insatiable Thirst for Democracy? Unclear, as this LA Times op-ed piece suggests.

• The Iranian regime maintains a social base committed to the Islamic Republic — as the election results showed. Since the inception of the Iranian reformist movement in 1997, when outgoing President Mohammad Khatami and his allies were at the height of their popularity, at least 20% of the Iranian electorate has voted consistently for candidates associated with conservatives. Their relatively small numbers are deceiving because they are passionate. Any political change, from inside or out, will come only through violent confrontation with these regime supporters, who will stop at nothing to perpetuate the revolution they still feel was bestowed upon them by God and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
  
  The Iranians who some observers expect to rebel don't appear up to the task. Unlike their parents' generation, Iran's young adults, who either didn't vote or, out of desperation, supported Hashemi Rafsanjani in the presidential election, are neither idealistic nor revolutionary. In the shah's Iran, politically minded youth attended tuition-free universities and, for the most part, encountered few difficulties in obtaining a job after graduation. Even so, they perceived the shah's regime as beholden to the United States and embraced leftist and revolutionary ideologies (secular and Islamist) as alternatives to his rule. Many young people were willing to pass the first test of a true revolutionary: sacrificing their lives for the cause.
  
  Self-absorbed and materialistic, today's disgruntled youth want, above all, gainful employment and tangible improvements in their standards of living. Though fed up with the merger of religion and politics, they are not liberal democrats. They want to be left alone to pursue their social and private lives, which explains why some of them were drawn to Rafsanjani. The former parliamentary leader and president touted the Chinese model of social and economic liberalization within a rigid political framework — in essence the shah's ruling formula. Young people refrained from voting for Rafsanjani in large numbers because of their lack of faith in him and his ability to fulfill his promises.
  
  Even if widening political divisions triggered a popular uprising, there are no guarantees it would lead to the establishment of a stable democracy. To the contrary, because the regime is highly entrenched and endowed with a reliable and fanatical social base, it would put up a fierce and bloody resistance. Either the uprising would be crushed or result in protracted chaos, civil war, even the dismemberment of the country.

Hmm. Not uniformly encouraging, but I'm willing to give it a shot. I say, Knock Over. Give 'em 6 months, say.

Gattigap

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
1. "Hefty F.U." in para. 1 is okay, I see where you're going, but consider if "hearty F.U." might be more along the lines of what you are trying to convey.

2. The phrase "liberal haters" in para. 2 is ambiguous. Are you referring to those who hate liberals, or to those liberals who hate? If the first, I suggest "Americans" or "patriots" or something along those lines. If the second, consider "hating liberals", or "self-hating liberals", "commie bastards", "weak-kneeded butt-lickers of cheese-eating surrender monkeys", etc.

Other than that, good work! Your development as a writer is coming along well.

Commander in Chief Bush.

Justice Roberts.

UN Ambassador Bolton.

It's hard being one of the liberal losers isn't it? Good luck with that Hillary thing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
1. "Hefty F.U." in para. 1 is okay, I see where you're going, but consider if "hearty F.U." might be more along the lines of what you are trying to convey.

2. The phrase "liberal haters" in para. 2 is ambiguous. Are you referring to those who hate liberals, or to those liberals who hate? If the first, I suggest "Americans" or "patriots" or something along those lines. If the second, consider "hating liberals", or "self-hating liberals", "commie bastards", "weak-kneeded butt-lickers of cheese-eating surrender monkeys", etc.

Other than that, good work! Your development as a writer is coming along well.

I'm afraid I have to take sides with SHP and against you Penske. I assume you mean the second version, and in this sense "liberal haters" is redundant and thus a poorly crafted term, like they say homicide bombers is.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm afraid I have to take sides with SHP and against you Penske. I assume you mean the second version, and in this sense "liberal haters" is redundant and thus a poorly crafted term, like they say homicide bombers is.

Democrat-party-disciples-of-racist-democrat-conscience-Bobby-Byrd aka liberals.