Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
Nothing. Who the fuck is Hobson? Do you mean Hobbesian choice?

What are you, like, thirty-four?

Hobson. Google it. Effin kids.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
What's today buddy-boy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/in...ner=ALTAVISTA1

Much other reporting has suggested that the decision to disband the Iraqi Army has made in Washington, above Bremer's head. Consistent with this, the article you cite quotes Douglas Feith in defense of the policy. Then there are these paragraphs:

• The role of top Bush administration officials in approving the plan is unclear. Mr. Slocombe said the decision was the subject of extensive consultations with senior Defense Department officials in Washington. A draft of Mr. Bremer's decree abolishing the army, he said, was sent to Mr. Rumsfeld before it was issued.
  
  Lawrence Di Rita, Mr. Rumsfeld's spokesman, said in an e-mail message that the issue was not taken up by cabinet-level officials and was "definitely not one that the secretary of defense decided."
  
  General Peter Pace of the Marines, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Joint Chiefs were not consulted about the decision.
  
  Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, indicated that the idea did not originate in the National Security Council but acknowledged that the White House did not object.
  
  "I don't think that anybody thought it was wildly out of context with what we were trying to achieve and the whole structure had been set up so that some of those decisions could be made in the field or through the Pentagon chain," she said in an interview.

The article continues to explain that the military didn't like it. And then there's this:

• General Garner, who was winding up his service in Iraq at that time, was also opposed. He said he had not been given advance notice of the plan. "What was happening was that hundreds of Iraqi soldiers were just beginning to come back," Mr. Garner said. "We could have brought back and paired them up in former units. Instead, we just shut the door on them."

So the decision was made while General Garner "was winding up his service in Iraq"? Bremer wasn't in charge yet, but he somehow made this decision? Yeah, right.

This is too cute by half. I don't know where the idea "originated," but if you think it wasn't made in the White House, that bridge is still for sale. Oddly, the article never explains who actually made the decision. It's just a bunch of different guys pointing the finger at each other.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
What are you, like, thirty-four?

Hobson. Google it. Effin kids.

Well if you read my title, you would see I am too lazy to google. But when I did muster up the energy to google, this is what I got:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Hobson

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is too cute by half. I don't know where the idea "originated," but if you think it wasn't made in the White House, that bridge is still for sale. Oddly, the article never explains who actually made the decision. It's just a bunch of different guys pointing the finger at each other.

I'm old, and my memory fades, but wasn't the decision made when they realized that, one, the invasion had gone too fast, and, two, that left whole regiments intact and eager to fight under-the-table against us, and, three, they had to redesign from the top down?

I love hindsight. If I could live by it in my job, I wouldn't have to rely on posting for a salary.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Much other reporting has suggested that the decision to disband the Iraqi Army has made in Washington, above Bremer's head. Consistent with this, the article you cite quotes Douglas Feith in defense of the policy. Then there are these paragraphs:

• The role of top Bush administration officials in approving the plan is unclear. Mr. Slocombe said the decision was the subject of extensive consultations with senior Defense Department officials in Washington. A draft of Mr. Bremer's decree abolishing the army, he said, was sent to Mr. Rumsfeld before it was issued.
  
  Lawrence Di Rita, Mr. Rumsfeld's spokesman, said in an e-mail message that the issue was not taken up by cabinet-level officials and was "definitely not one that the secretary of defense decided."
  
  General Peter Pace of the Marines, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Joint Chiefs were not consulted about the decision.
  
  Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, indicated that the idea did not originate in the National Security Council but acknowledged that the White House did not object.
  
  "I don't think that anybody thought it was wildly out of context with what we were trying to achieve and the whole structure had been set up so that some of those decisions could be made in the field or through the Pentagon chain," she said in an interview.

The article continues to explain that the military didn't like it. And then there's this:

• General Garner, who was winding up his service in Iraq at that time, was also opposed. He said he had not been given advance notice of the plan. "What was happening was that hundreds of Iraqi soldiers were just beginning to come back," Mr. Garner said. "We could have brought back and paired them up in former units. Instead, we just shut the door on them."

So the decision was made while General Garner "was winding up his service in Iraq"? Bremer wasn't in charge yet, but he somehow made this decision? Yeah, right.

This is too cute by half. I don't know where the idea "originated," but if you think it wasn't made in the White House, that bridge is still for sale. Oddly, the article never explains who actually made the decision. It's just a bunch of different guys pointing the finger at each other.

Just as a warning to the rest of you, I read through what Ty has posted, and there is no porn at all in it. Just a warning.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
Well if you read my title, you would see I am too lazy to google. But when I did muster up the energy to google, this is what I got:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Hobson

Sigh.

Well, at heart, I am an educator.

Hobson's choice

An apparently free choice that actually offers no alternative. For example, My dad said if I wanted the car I could have it tonight or not at all - that's Hobson's choice. This expression alludes to Thomas Hobson of Cambridge, England, who rented horses and allowed each customer to take only the horse nearest the stable door. [Mid-1600s]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm old, and my memory fades, but wasn't the decision made when they realized that, one, the invasion had gone too fast, and, two, that left whole regiments intact and eager to fight under-the-table against us, and, three, they had to redesign from the top down?

I love hindsight. If I could live by it in my job, I wouldn't have to rely on posting for a salary.

Your insistence on defending the Administration through thick and thin is noble, if not misguided. I particularly appreciate it here, since Hello was purveying the notion that Bremer (or someone else) was responsible the for the decision you defend on Bush's behalf.

But it's fun to see one administration defender saying, so it was the wrong thing to do -- it wasn't us, and another saying, it was us, but it wasn't wrong.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your insistence on defending the Administration through thick and thin is noble, if not misguided. I particularly appreciate it here, since Hello was purveying the notion that Bremer (or someone else) was responsible the for the decision you defend on Bush's behalf.

But it's fun to see one administration defender saying, so it was the wrong thing to do -- it wasn't us, and another saying, it was us, but it wasn't wrong.

I've watched you post for too long. You danced right past what I said. I can't take credit for what some other "defender" said - only what I say.

Am I wrong?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Quick, where's an adult to tell me to go to my room?

You are quite the name-caller, huh pal?

I'm not accusing you of having anything like a "belief" in God. If you took that literally from my post than you should run out and buy a sarcasm meter. I'm accusing you of misrepresenting a belief in Nada, Nothing, Nobody or whatever you said

I should really be able to ignore you. Why can't I ignore you? Please resign from your post as a moderator of a dead board so I can.

It is you who are hedging, and its in stark contrast to your asserted belief in Nada, Nothing, Nobody. You said it, so what words am I putting in your mouth? You also said everybody is afraid of the end. You denying this?

Here's a clue. The two are irreconcilable. You can't deny God entirely (i.e., Nada, Nothing, Nobody) if you can't disclaim a fear of God. You can't be afraid of something that you affirmatively assert does not exist. Nobody is afraid of nothing. Tell me again how your doggy cried for its mommy when it was going to doggy heaven. At best, people are afraid of what is out there in the unknown. In your case, you are afraid of Who you think might be hiding behind door #1. Yup, you are afraid of the possibility of a big, hairy, vengeful God.

Quick, call me some more names and tell me how you didn't say what you said. I'll see you at mass in 2 days, m'kay buddy? You don't mind if I sign you up for the choir, do ya?

ETA "door"

"Nobody is afraid of nothing."

Well, if you insist on putting the rabbit in the hat, there's no point in debate, is there?

To the contrary, I am very afraid of nothing. Perhaps "fear" might be the wrong word, but lets just say I'm not pleased at the thought of passing from consciousness into nothingness. But I don't have any choice now, do I?

"Yup, you are afraid of the possibility of a big, hairy, vengeful God."

Actually, thats you. I find the notion of a vengeful god to be a construction exclusively of organized religion. It was a cynical way of keeping the masses in check.

If you read my posts, you'd know I actually said I believe in a creating force. I don't, however, believe in the western notion of a "God" who morally judges and has any interest in humanity. I've said that from the start, and you know it. You twisted my words to accuse me of being a hypocritical false atheist.

One can believe in a God and believe that Death is the end for him at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. You, I presume, do not see these as mutually exlusive concepts. And the reason is because without the afterlife, your belief in god really has no point.

I don't mean to attack your faith, but there are so many holes in what you believe, and you seem so unable to defend it on its merits, that I just can't help myself. I see so many intellectually dishonest concepts bandied about this country these days, and I view "faith" as one of the chief instigators of this dumbing-down of society. I'm sorry, but it really offends me. I don't understand how a mind can self-manipulate to the point where it believes the fantastic and rejects the obvious. Its baffling.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But will you admit I'm right and you'll repent at the end? mohammed Atta probably had a moment, coming up the river, where he started to question whether he'd actually get all the virgins. Fear of death is universal- even for the true believers. people are just asking: don't you admit there is a 1% chance of god?

Oy veh. For the 50th time, I actually believe in a creating force of some sort. I mean, something staretd this whole thing, right? I just don't buy into any of the rubbish created by man about there being a god who has a special interest in mankind, that mankind is somehow blessed, that there's a heaven and hell, that we'll be "judged", that there'll be a second coming... etc... That I don't buy. Its all unprovable silliness.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Oy veh. For the 50th time, I actually believe in a creating force of some sort. I mean, something staretd this whole thing, right? I just don't buy into any of the rubbish created by man about there being a god who has a special interest in mankind, that mankind is somehow blessed, that there's a heaven and hell, that we'll be "judged", that there'll be a second coming... etc... That I don't buy. Its all unprovable silliness.

I didn't say now, I said in the hospital. Unless......you're not trying to break some horrible news are you?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your insistence on defending the Administration through thick and thin is noble, if not misguided. I particularly appreciate it here, since Hello was purveying the notion that Bremer (or someone else) was responsible the for the decision you defend on Bush's behalf.

But it's fun to see one administration defender saying, so it was the wrong thing to do -- it wasn't us, and another saying, it was us, but it wasn't wrong.

I'm certainly not defending the administration generally; rather, only insofar as Bremer is attacking it. I'm not saying the Administration isn't responsible for this. Rather, I'm saying Bremer isn't exactly the guy I want to see with his hindsight criticism, since its his judgements were in question. So how much for that bridge? I'd rather get an explanation from Kerry about when he would be willing to use unilateral preemptive military force, but I don't think you people are selling this information for anything.

Hello

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
There's this story of the famine-hit village where people are hungry, stores are empty, and months of winter beckon.

The dem pulls out the seed stock and cook it up. All the people caught short because of poor planning, lost jobs, and dead crops are thrilled. Everyone eats.

Then, next spring, everyone dies.

So, Social Security is eating the seed corn? Or which New Deal (or Fair Deal or Great Society) program that the GOP opposed are you talking about?

And if you are talking about funding amounts, not the program's very existance, then you are guilty of the "me-too-ism" that the Taft wing crucified Dewey for after 1948 and the Goldwater wing crucified Sebby's hero Nelson for in 1964.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've been too busy to respond substantively today to the porn thread, but does anybody remember what Tipper Gore was famous for before "The Kiss."

Yes, and it was one of the things that cost her husband the nomination of his party in 1988.

No one disputes that the Democratic party has social conservatives, too. The difference is that they don't get pandered. (I know, I know -- the Dems do plenty of pandering. Just not to them.)

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
"Nobody is afraid of nothing."

Well, if you insist on putting the rabbit in the hat, there's no point in debate, is there?

Huh?

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Perhaps "fear" might be the wrong word, but lets just say I'm not pleased at the thought of passing from consciousness into nothingness. But I don't have any choice now, do I?

This sounds introspective. Like a retraction. When you can figure out another word that you think is right, please be sure to let me know, alrighty?

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"Yup, you are afraid of the possibility of a big, hairy, vengeful God."

Actually, thats you. I find the notion of a vengeful god to be a construction exclusively of organized religion. It was a cynical way of keeping the masses in check.

Hey, you are the guy who admitted "fear". And who said anything about organized religion? Why do you keep bringing that up? Guilt from a Catholic upbringing? You know, this stuff existed before Catholicism. Is there Catholocism for cats?

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You twisted my words to accuse me of being a hypocritical false atheist.

And? Actually, I used your words directly. The conclusion is yours.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't mean to attack your faith, but there are so many holes in what you believe, and you seem so unable to defend it on its merits, that I just can't help myself.

Actually, we've been talking about you. What happened to you in the Catholic church anyways?

Hello

ET fix /QUOTEs