Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Apropos of Nothing]

Originally posted by sgtclub

(From National Review)

To accept CBS's insistence the four documents from the early 1970s are authentic, you would have to believe the following:

(1) That the late Jerry Killian, Bush's commanding officer, typed the documents--though his wife says "he wasn't a typist."

(5) ... that Killian had gained the significant expertise needed to operate [the fancy-schmancy typewriter].

Uh, I'm still agnostic on the while forgery thing pending further review, but why does one have to believe that Killian personally typed them in order for CBS to be correct? Can't one believe that his secretary (or clerk or whatever) typed them from Killian's dictation or a note?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But, once we accept that its going to be done on our dime, I'm merely advocating a more fair and efficient (actually, effective) way of implementing it.

I think I understand what you're saying, and also what you mean by it. But, I do so colored by the underlay that slavery was an incredibly efficient and effective system.

I agree that getting a whole bunch of people to contribute to the cause is more effective than small, individual efforts, and that the most effective result comes from the most widespread participation. However, that doesn't give you a moral claim to my participation - just a logical argument as to why I might want to participate. Big difference.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think I understand what you're saying, and also what you mean by it. But, I do so colored by the underlay that slavery was an incredibly efficient and effective system.

I agree that getting a whole bunch of people to contribute to the cause is more effective than small, individual efforts, and that the most effective result comes from the most widespread participation. However, that doesn't give you a moral claim to my participation - just a logical argument as to why I might want to participate. Big difference.

Bilmore's rising tide raises only his boat.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think I understand what you're saying, and also what you mean by it. But, I do so colored by the underlay that slavery was an incredibly efficient and effective system.

I agree that getting a whole bunch of people to contribute to the cause is more effective than small, individual efforts, and that the most effective result comes from the most widespread participation. However, that doesn't give you a moral claim to my participation - just a logical argument as to why I might want to participate. Big difference.

Any kind of zoning demand individual sacrifices from the many -- i.e., surrendering the right to use property for certain uses -- for the common good. The better analogy to what Hello is suggesting is zoning, not slavery.

And if you don't like zoning, you can always live in Houston.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Bilmore's rising tide raises only his boat.

If you saw my tax bill and our yearly charitable deductions, you'd fall down on your knees and apologize.

Well, maybe not, but you should.

(But, if I chose to let your boat sink, would that be my moral failing? Shouldn't you be watching out for your own boat? Do I have a say in how much of your boat-fixing labor I can expect to see before I'm willing to give you mine?)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Any kind of zoning demand individual sacrifices from the many -- i.e., surrendering the right to use property for certain uses -- for the common good. The better analogy to what Hello is suggesting is zoning, not slavery.

And if you don't like zoning, you can always live in Houston.

Well, we're not speaking of zoning.

Coltrane's talking about fixing boats, so maybe I'm just confused, anyway. The truly poor don't even HAVE boats.

[Apropos of Nothing]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• TV reporter killed by US fire during live Baghdad broadcast
  By Adrian Blomfield in Baghdad
  (Filed: 13/09/2004)
  
  A television journalist was shot dead as he made a live broadcast from Baghdad yesterday when United States helicopters fired on a crowd that had gathered round the burning wreckage of an American armoured vehicle.
  
  Mazen al-Tumeizi, a Palestinian working for Al-Arabiya, one of the main Arab satellite television channels, was among 12 people - all believed to be civilians - killed in the incident on Haifa Street.

I was under the impression that he was killed while the helicopters were trying to completely destroy the Bradley, so that it would not be salvageable by the Iraqi insurgents. Still a shame, but it doesn't seem like it was an intentional attack on civillians.

Oh, and there was a recent article by Robert Kagan in the Atlantic about the Marines and Fallujah. Good stuff -- I'll see if I can find it online to post a link.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Atticus is an idiot who can't follow logic.

2.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, we're not speaking of zoning.

Coltrane's talking about fixing boats, so maybe I'm just confused, anyway. The truly poor don't even HAVE boats.

Maybe I'm confused, but I thought Hello's point was that low-income housing should be scattered throughout Chicago (e.g.) through use of Section 8 vouchers, etc., rather than concentrated in a few particular neighborhoods, say in Cabrini Green or the Robert Taylor Homes, or in the situation where vouchers are accepted in only a few areas.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think I understand what you're saying, and also what you mean by it. But, I do so colored by the underlay that slavery was an incredibly efficient and effective system.

I agree that getting a whole bunch of people to contribute to the cause is more effective than small, individual efforts, and that the most effective result comes from the most widespread participation. However, that doesn't give you a moral claim to my participation - just a logical argument as to why I might want to participate. Big difference.

Big difference my ass. Your characterization is that rich people would be contributing to the cause along with the poor under my system... and I don't have a moral claim to their/your participation. I'm saying that the rich people and towns are paying to impose the entire burden on me (if I live on parts of the south or west side of Chicago). Excuse me while I retch.

Once we accept that the G is going to impose this on society, the first and most essential question is whether its being imposed fairly. Its not fair when rich people can buy their way out of a draft, and its not fair when rich people can buy exemption from the full impact of their nation's laws. The idea that you would characterize it as me making moral claim to their participation, is less than zero. The flipside is them buying their way out of participation and imposing the burdens of such participation on me.

Do you really believe that the burdens are fairly distributed now?

Hello

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Blood drenched imagery"? Boy, I missed that part. But, agree with the rest. It hammered home to me directly on the deciding issue for me today. I can overlook the gay marriage idiocy, the overspending, the caving in on campaign finance reform, and a bunch of other stuff, because I consider our present stance as participants in the beginning of WWIII to be more important than any of the other issues, and I absolutely cannot stand the idea of Kerry being "in charge" during this coming four years of that war.

Well, you're about to get your wish. BC'04 is well on its way to scaring the shit out of the electorate, in a campaign that will cover them with historical glory. I give them a 2/3rds chance of pulling it off successfully.

We might get our wish under Bush to 4 more years of devoting our armed forces to blowing shit up in Iraq and otherwise maintaining a stalemate in the War on the Noun of Terror, but little else will be done on the foreign front (except for the completion and undercover sale of nukes by NK and the rise of Iran as a nuclear power, with little for Bush to do about it given that his main diplomatic tool being pretty much fully engaged in Baghdad, Falloujah and Kabul).

On the domestic side, the next four years will make your fiscal conservative stomach groan, as the buffet line set out during GWBI will most likely continue. Enjoy.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore

Coltrane's talking about fixing boats, so maybe I'm just confused, anyway.

I'm customizing metaphors to make it seem like I have something relevant to say.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Apropos of Nothing
I was under the impression that he was killed while the helicopters were trying to completely destroy the Bradley, so that it would not be salvageable by the Iraqi insurgents. Still a shame, but it doesn't seem like it was an intentional attack on civillians.

You are correct. The civilians have been warned not to try to take the arms off of disabled Coalition equipment. Those who do it, do it at their own risk. Those who film those who do it, do so at their own risk.

Those looting the disabled Bradley were insurgents trying to get arms to kill US soldiers.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe I'm confused, but I thought Hello's point was that low-income housing should be scattered throughout Chicago (e.g.) through use of Section 8 vouchers, etc., rather than concentrated in a few particular neighborhoods, say in Cabrini Green or the Robert Taylor Homes, or in the situation where vouchers are accepted in only a few areas.

I thought he was saying that limousine liberals won't allow section 8 vouchers in their neighborhoods.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
You are correct. The civilians have been warned not to try to take the arms off of disabled Coalition equipment. Those who do it, do it at their own risk. Those who film those who do it, do so at their own risk.

Those looting the disabled Bradley were insurgents trying to get arms to kill US soldiers.

2