Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Uh, the helping the poor thing switched to your side. Did you get the memo? You're the ones with the religious right. Surely they've all read their bibles and the multiple, multiple passages about helping the poor.

We're godless heathens and don't have that handy refrence material to keep us on track. Good luck with it!

The problem is that the religious right, in an effort to lighten the load of carrying those bibles around, has adopted a new version that removed the entire New Testament, with the exception of the Book of Revelations. While the new version is easier to carry, all that helping-the-poor stuff doesn't show up.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I posted a link to a free-trade supporter who says the Bush Administration is hurting the cause in the way it gathered votes for CAFTA -- e.g., by trading support for CAFTA for support for farm subsidies. This undercuts the idea that CAFTA was necessary to keep up some kind of momentum for free trade.

You don't have to talk about this if you want to, and of course you can continue to hit the "Democrats bad, Republicans good" note.

Momentum? CAFTA was a free trade agreement that was good for free trade. And no one really knows what deals Bush cut to get it passed. But I can say that if more supposedly "free trade" democrats had supported the bill then he wouldn't have had to cut any deals.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Dude, you are falling off the deep end. We went to Serbia, Bosnia, Haiti and Iraq solely because it was in our self interest. If you have actually bought into the argument that we went for humantarian purposes unrelated to our security, you are really drinking the cool-aid.

How was bombing Serbia in our self interest. The only real threats to our security are people that can attack us with WMDs or Canada and Mexico. What the hell does Serbia have to do with our national security?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

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.

More clarification than comment:

(a) The Freakonomics chapter was a pretty cursory journalistic gloss of an much more involved article on that study. I'm merely quibbling with the idea that the chapter in Freakonomics "demonstrates" anything conclusively, though it describes and summarizes (and not entirely worthlessly) another work in which the dude did demonstrate some interesting facts pretty conclusively. I liked the book but, frankly, was somewhat disappointed that the underlying work was so heavily abridged. However, the full articles are more or less freely available for readers not afraid of academic writing.

(b) The economist himself points out at some point that, since the prevented deaths by murder/infanticide/neglect/execution are almost certainly fewer than the number of abortions, if you are of the opinion that (i) human/full "personhood"/whatever life begins at conception and (ii) the policy goal should be to maximize lives preserved, then crime reduction by abortion isn't very efficient. So the study doesn't really undermine core anti-abortion argument (the "abortion = a culture of death and leads to more lawlessness and high crime and death" BS isn't really the core objection, it is just meant to appeal to people who don't buy the primary premise but might be swayed by a more pragmatic argument). That said, the fact that he isn't quite making the argument you wish he was making doesn't lessen the pleasure of watching him destroy a crappy argument on the other side. His gleeful disregard of moral & cultural sensitivities in the face of facts is quite delightful.

(c) Perhaps of more interest to anyone who has considered buying a house in the last 5 years might be the chapter comparing real estate agents to the KKK.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
How was bombing Serbia in our self interest. The only real threats to our security are people that can attack us with WMDs or Canada and Mexico. What the hell does Serbia have to do with our national security?

"Instability in Europe" is the short answer.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

Why does it matter what excuse Bush used. Either it was the right move or it was not. Who cares what Bush said. Bush's use of WMDs was to gain political support. It was a political move. The only bad political move is one that causes you to have bad political consequences. Bush won reelection, and that is when his using if WMDs as an excuse ceased to be an issue.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
Momentum? CAFTA was a free trade agreement that was good for free trade. And no one really knows what deals Bush cut to get it passed. But I can say that if more supposedly "free trade" democrats had supported the bill then he wouldn't have had to cut any deals.

If there were fewer evil traitorous Republicans, you wouldn't care at all about the democrats.

Originally posted by Spanky
Why does it matter what excuse Bush used. Either it was the right move or it was not. Who cares what Bush said. Bush's use of WMDs was to gain political support. It was a political move. The only bad political move is one that causes you to have bad political consequences. Bush won reelection, and that is when his using if WMDs as an excuse ceased to be an issue.

Exactly the same way everyone stopped complaining about things Clinton did in his first term after he was re-elected, right?

Originally posted by Spanky
I think we give Castro six months to call free elections. If he does not we invade. No reason not to.

Yes! We must liberate the Mojiots and Havenese puppies before Castro dies. He has six months, right?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why does it matter what excuse Bush used. Either it was the right move or it was not. Who cares what Bush said. Bush's use of WMDs was to gain political support. It was a political move. The only bad political move is one that causes you to have bad political consequences. Bush won reelection, and that is when his using if WMDs as an excuse ceased to be an issue.

Because this is America, damnit, and it matters. This Republican pragmatic ends-justifying-the-means bullshit has got to stop. I was taught growing up that we are not a country that invades another on a pretense. We don't torture people, or come so close as to make it a question. We don't incarcerate people indefinitely without charging them. So please, Republicans, I'm begging you: STOP FUCKING UP ALL THAT IS AMERICA.

It matters because were the ones who saved the world from Nazis, and did so without torturing them. It matters because it is a mark of shame that we interned the Japanese. It matters because we melded postwar Europe and Japan in our own polical image and they believed what we told them about the fundamental rights of humanity. It matters because we inspired the people in Tianamen square to believe that the world could be better. It matters because we are the peace makers, not the war-mongering imperialists.

It just matters.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
How was bombing Serbia in our self interest. The only real threats to our security are people that can attack us with WMDs or Canada and Mexico. What the hell does Serbia have to do with our national security?

Have you heard of WWI?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Many of your points are well taken. I won't respond point-by-point (other than to note that your inability to distinguish Serbia and Cuba means you made the right decision in leaving the practice of law) because you don't seem to get that this really isn't about Cuba*. The "justifications" you provide for an unprovoked invasion of Cuba heads down a dangerously slippery slope.

Aristotle pointed out over 2,000 years ago that the Slippery Slope arguments is a Fallacy but morons keep trying to use it. Any policy can be critisized because it could lead to bad policy. If we lock up murderers eventually we will be locking up Jay walkers. We can't ban machine guns because eventually we will be banning squirt guns. You questions my legal ability and you are using the "Slippery Slope" argument?

Originally posted by Shape Shifter The reasons you've just given could (and would) be adopted by other nations whose intentions may not be as lily white as ours. India could invade Pakistan, China could invade the oil-rich 'Stans, hell, Saddam could have made similar arguments for invading Kuwait. Any objections we would have would be countered by pointing the finger to our actions in Cuba.

Hitler said that Poland attacked him as an excuse to invade Poland. Does that mean that we should drop the idea that people can use force to defend themselves because it could be used as an excuse for other countrys to use agression against third partys? And you question my legal ability? You really need to think about what you say before you say it.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter What you are advocating is a dangerous and irresponsible approach to the use of military power. If we don't use restraint, how are we to persuade others to be similarly restrained.

It is not dangerous and irresponsible. It is perfectly logical and makes sense. We do what is right and makes sense and expect other countrys to do the same. Is that such a hard concept to grasp.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Penske and slave can't be in the army. One has a weight problem and one a sexual orientation problem, or so I've heard. Me? I wouldn't take a job away from an uneducated kid looking for a way to better himself.

Not to worry - haven't you heard there's an excess of available slots? Plus, if you're lucky they'll send you to Cuba, where the beaches are pure perfection, the drinks are strong, the fishing is terrific, the baseball is first-rate, and the women are young, lithe and desperate for an American male.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Aristotle pointed out over 2,000 years ago that the Slippery Slope arguments is a Fallacy but morons keep trying to use it. Any policy can be critisized because it could lead to bad policy. If we lock up murderers eventually we will be locking up Jay walkers. We can't ban machine guns because eventually we will be banning squirt guns. You questions my legal ability and you are using the "Slippery Slope" argument?

Fine. Quibble with semantics. Your argument can be more fairly characterized as driving off a cliff.

Hitler said that Poland attacked him as an excuse to invade Poland. Does that mean that we should drop the idea that people can use force to defend themselves because it could be used as an excuse for other countrys to use agression against third partys? And you question my legal ability? You really need to think about what you say before you say it.

I'm unclear. Are you comparing your argument favorably to Hitler's actions? Is there a reverse Godwin's law?

It is not dangerous and irresponsible. It is perfectly logical and makes sense. We do what is right and makes sense and expect other countrys to do the same. Is that such a hard concept to grasp.

If there's logic, you haven't expressed it. While we're on the topic of logic, please reconcile this:

Originally posted by Spanky
Without the Embargo Cuban's would have been exposed much more to American culture and realized more how full of it their own Dictator is. If we had continued trade with Cuba I think Castro would have fallen by now.

with this:

Originally posted by Spanky
I think we give Castro six months to call free elections. If he does not we invade. No reason not to.

Bonus points if you explain how this invasion worth it taking Castro's advanced years into account.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I think you may have a crippling misunderstanding of what a million dollars actually buys in San Francisco.

2. Basically an outhouse in the tenderloin.