Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


The NYT is the paper that published the bank supeona information, which it even had to admit was a fuck up, and directly did more damage to each of us, than any and all alleged reduction of our rights combined.

It's true, weed. Like Romney says, "the most basic civil right is the right to be kept alive." Patrick Henry, of course, can go blow Romney for America.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
"Bhuttos of the World"? You mean the ones who prey upon the trust of their countrymen so as to steal upwards of 2 Billion and then show up again when things are so bad in the country that even a thief starts looking good and "the answer" to all the mayhem?

that's basically how Ty got the mod job here.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's true, weed. Like Romney says, "the most basic civil right is the right to be kept alive." Patrick Henry, of course, can go blow Romney for America.

First, Mormons can't have sex outside wedlock, so Romney won't get blown.

Second, which erosion(s) of my rights did more harm than the bank outing.

third, it's a new year. if you want to be snide you should aim for more clever.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


Second, which erosion(s) of my rights did more harm than the bank outing.

third, it's a new year. if you want to be snide you should aim for more clever.

Sorry. I thought "dim fuck" was the signal that we weren't really talking about waterboarding as such anymore. Even worse, it takes a more nuanced reader than I to pick up on your clever use of the term.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
First, Mormons can't have sex outside wedlock, so Romney won't get blown.

He's a practicing Mormon, he might not have it right.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Second, which erosion(s) of my rights did more harm than the bank outing.

None of us -- not even you -- are in a position to know that.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
third, it's a new year. if you want to be snide you should aim for more clever.

"A man's got to know his limitations." - Clint Eastwood (in some role)

S_A_M

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
We would take a cite to an interesting article from you.

That would, at least, be something.

I don't know what that girl is doing with that thing but it looks like a sanding machine that emits fireworks and is being held dangerously close to private parts. I consider this an original expression concerning Pakistan. And thank you for it.

Since you're taking cites, I think this article (which only addresses one topic of course) was pretty ballsy and gives credit to more genuine efforts being waged towards a free Pakistan.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Sorry. I thought "dim fuck" was the signal that we weren't really talking about waterboarding as such anymore. Even worse, it takes a more nuanced reader than I to pick up on your clever use of the term.

he called me a name first.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It is hard for Americans to understand the role of the military in Pakistan, because it is a role that really relates to the military as a separate, deeply entrenched and hereditary institution. There is nothing like it here. But during partition the country was really constructed around the military, which the British had made the most central and privileged local institution and which they counted on, post-independence, as a bulwark against Russia. Just as the American elites have multi-generational ties to Harvard or Yale, the Pakistani elites have multi-generational ties to a particular military unit. What unit your grandfather served in is more important to a Pakistani than what public school their family is associated with is to a City Barrister.

But because it's hard for Americans to understand the role of the military and what Bhutto represents (a family not tied to the military for its prestige - a family that breaks traditional molds in a very modern and non-Pakistani way), when Americans meddle in Pakistani politics, the law of unintended consequences applies. But as the only remaining superpower, they will meddle. The article did a decent job of highlighting how that played into the battle between the Bhuttos of the world and the traditional forces. And Musharif is just as much a part of the traditional landscape as the Islamicists.

Excellent point. It is exactly America's lack of understanding of the country, in that regard and many others, that drives so many of us to value the Pakistanis' democratic rights over the need to keep their nukes under the control of a non-fanatical regime.

Granted, Bhutto was no fanatic, but I don't mind one bit that a person like Musharraf has the reins of a nuclear power. He's controllable and shrewd, as he's demonstrated by triangulating the differing demands and pressures placed on him by us, the citizens of his country and the elites who run the military. Predictable is as good as it gets in that part of the world.

What keeps Radical Islam knuckled under is our friend, no matter the means.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Excellent point. It is exactly America's lack of understanding of the country, in that regard and many others, that drives so many of us to value the Pakistanis' democratic rights over the need to keep their nukes under the control of a non-fanatical regime.

Granted, Bhutto was no fanatic, but I don't mind one bit that a person like Musharraf has the reins of a nuclear power. He's controllable and shrewd, as he's demonstrated by triangulating the differing demands and pressures placed on him by us, the citizens of his country and the elites who run the military. Predictable is as good as it gets in that part of the world.

What keeps Radical Islam knuckled under is our friend, no matter the means.

Ultimately, we must place bets. Musharif, like the Shah, is a bet on a traditional autocratic power. Will the force of radical islam or western capitalism and modernization be more compelling?

It may turn out that Bhutto's successors leading the democratic movement are preferrable to her in some ways; but it wouldn't be good to succomb to the temptation to paint her all one color - the Bhutto legacy is complicated, and has much good to it as well.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
he called me a name first.

I was making a point about the value of opinions. No offense, assclam.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ultimately, we must place bets. Musharif, like the Shah, is a bet on a traditional autocratic power. Will the force of radical islam or western capitalism and modernization be more compelling?

It may turn out that Bhutto's successors leading the democratic movement are preferrable to her in some ways; but it wouldn't be good to succomb to the temptation to paint her all one color - the Bhutto legacy is complicated, and has much good to it as well.

I don't have any problem with Bhutto at all. I didn't mean to imply that. In fact, since she was committed to democracy, which Musharraf clearly isn't, in a safe and stable country, I'd support her every day over a strongman like Musharraf.

However, under the circumstances in place in Pakistan, open, true Democracy would be exceedingly dangerous to the world. The country has nukes, and it also has hundreds of some of the most virulently anti-western madrassas in the world, as well as uncontrolled Al Queda, Taliban and radical Islamist elements. In a country where a sizable percentage of the population is educated only by memorizing the Koran, I don't see any true "Democratic" votes taking place (A democracy where a large portion of the voting public is brainwashed to vote a certain way is not a real democracy [This could be said of United States in some regards]). I see an ignorant mass distorting the vote and placing large numbers of Islamists in the government, a growing cancer which could topple a leader like Bhutto, sending a cache of nuclear weapons into the hands of Islamists.

Now, you might say, "Oh, well, as it has in the past when it doesn't like the elected govt, in such a scenario, the military would simply swoop in and overthrow any wild Islamist leadership." You'd probably be right, but I think that would plunge the nation into chaos beyond what we're seeing now. That's a scenrio where we'd wind up occupying the country with a UN force, and as I think Not Bob said a few weeks ago, that would be a disaster of epic proportions.

So leave the strongman in for now. In 10 or 20 years, when India and China's labor costs start increasing and the global markets look more toward Pakistan for cheap labor, its economy will rise and with some degree of wealth and even the hope for a middle class, the country will forget the idiocy of Radical Islam and move into the 20th Century. Then you'll see people like Bhutto really bring the nation forward.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
I was making a point........

do you really believe this?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Say what you will, that guy is getting scads of cash and turning out huge mobs of people giving speeches about how we ought to practice "civil disobedience" by not paying income tax. I can't say I haven't felt a little teary eyed and wanted to hug someone when he gets a standing ovation for arguing that we should eviscerate the IRS and immediately end over single farm subsidy.

I think Paul represents a really scary reality looming down the road - people are not going to pay taxes in the future. As the middle class keeps losing jobs and the parties keeping trying to soak the upper middle class for more of the tax revenue they can't get from the rich you're going to see a sort of gilded tax revolt. There are already upper middle class people in Pennsylvania refusing to pay astronomical school taxes. God knows how much worse it is in New Jersey, where the taxes are twice ours.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Say what you will, that guy is getting scads of cash and turning out huge mobs of people giving speeches about how we ought to practice "civil disobedience" by not paying income tax. I can't say I haven't felt a little teary eyed and wanted to hug someone when he gets a standing ovation for arguing that we should eviscerate the IRS and immediately end over single farm subsidy.

I think the guy has tapped into a real wellspring of strong support, but that some of those strong supporters are loons, and that there just aren't enough of them to have a political impact. Since libertarians have been taken for granted by the GOP for a long time, it's nice to see them wake up and smell the coffee, but there aren't enough of them for it to matter that much. I'm not unsympathetic to some of what Paul says.

I think Paul represents a really scary reality looming down the road - people are not going to pay taxes in the future. As the middle class keeps losing jobs and the parties keeping trying to soak the upper middle class for more of the tax revenue they can't get from the rich you're going to see a sort of gilded tax revolt. There are already upper middle class people in Pennsylvania refusing to pay astronomical school taxes. God knows how much worse it is in New Jersey, where the taxes are twice ours.

I don't doubt that there are people who feel the way you do, but they are too few, poorly organized, or easily distracted by talk of terrorism and torture for it to lead to much of anything.