Reply With Quote
Ray and Yoni said to stay away from LA and Miami, unless you want to die.
Hi All,
Just in case you were wondering why I disappeared (and I'm sure most of your weren't, but I'm being polite), I will not be attending the political forum until about March next year. I have decided to clear my mind of politics in anticipation of my journey to your great nation - do as the Romans do and all that...
You know how I love to debate you on the matters of the day, but now is not the time for me. I've got too much to do and not enought time to do it, so adios for now.
Oh, and should we meet in your fair town, I won't bring up politics if you don't...
Later,
RnROS
Ray and Yoni said to stay away from LA and Miami, unless you want to die.
Well, the neocons are gone until the next invasion, so I guess that makes it more even.
I'll take Ray any time...
Yoni, OTOH, probably has a stock of automatic weapons and a proclivity to use them. Is he in LA or Miami?
He's up here planning the invasion of east Austin.
I don't know. He implied it's as safe in Bahgdad as it is in LA.
Chump, I think as an Aussie and a moderate liberal, I don't really fit into either camp in American politics anyway - although I do oppose much of the neocon/republican ideology, I'm not overly impressed by the democrats either. And I'm disgusted at the whole "two tribes go to war" political setup. I'm more of an independent.
Better check the politics on your travel agent.
I vote for the people I think will screw things up the least. The neocons screwed up things the most. The fact that noted historians are busting out the "worst president ever" le for Bush is premature but telling.
Which noted historians would that be?
Eric Foner is the one I saw quoted.
Sounds good. A trip to good ole Merica is what you need to straighten you out.
By the way...unless you are biking over here...
I want to congratulate you on the millions of earth warming pollutants that will be spewed into the atmosphere as you casually jaunt about the globe on a pleasure trip.
I know, I know, but everyone does it....and America invented the evil known as the airplane.
And you'll eat some veggies to make up for it.
I think you have the makings of a fine American lib though... about global warming, while hopping in a jet to travel halfway around the globe. ...you've got hollywood written all over you...
And remember, libs are smarter.
Oh yeah, him. I'm sure you've analyzed his rationale.
Are you talking about his claim in the Washington Post that George Bush is the worst president ever, and that there is "no alternative" to ranking him as such.
Foner once was a good historian. His book Nothing but Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy is excellent, and I understand that Karl Rove, a true student of American history, has spoken well of Foner's work. But anyone who would state, in a president's sixth year of office, that there is no alternative to adjudging him our worst president has subs uted partisan passion for objective historical thought.
It would be nice if such a historian would at least try to make a case. Foner can hardly be bothered. He notes that some of our bad presidents were unwilling to change course even in the face of adversity and strong public disapproval. But so, of course, were some of our great presidents, most notably Lincoln.
Foner argues that some of our bad presidents were corrupt, and goes on to assert that Bush's corruption is even worse than that of Harding. If there were a board that considers historical malpractice, Foner would have to appear before it for that one. Bush's administration has been nearly corruption free by historical standards. I may be missing someone, but the only high-profile administration offical I can think of who has faced criminal charges or had to resign in the face of scandal is Scooter Libby, who worked for the Vice President and who is not accused of corruption. Compare this record to that of President Clinton, who had dozens of administration officials, including cabinet members, in legal trouble, and who himself lost his law license because he committed perjury.
Foner's only other argument is that Bush has attempted to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date back to the Magna Carta. But neither the Magna Carta nor any other legal do ent grants the rights in question to foreign terrorists or enemy agents. Foner has no expertise in the law as far as I know. If he did, and if his hatred of Bush didn't continue to blind him, he would understand that the issues he refers to are novel legal ones, often with no clear answer. They are being worked out by the legal system. The rule of law is safe, and certainly safer than when it was when Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus or when Franklin Roosevelt imprisoned Amercans of Japanese origin without legal process. Foner rates Lincoln and FDR as among the three indisputably great presidents in our history.
Foner is so anxious to "mail in" his assessment that he neglects to mention the one issue that, depending on future developments, actually could cause objective historians to give President Bush low marks -- the war in Iraq. So, let's do his work for him, and compare Bush to some other post-World War II presidents when it comes to waging, or not waging, war.
Harry Truman
In early 1950, the Secretary of State fails to include South Korea in his statement of what comprises America's Pacific defense rim. A few months later, Joseph Stalin, who had vetoed a North Korean invasion of South Korea earlier, gives North Korea the go-ahead. The North Koreans invade. The U.S. is surprised and unprepared. Indeed, the Secretary of State had recently told Congress that no such invasion would likely occur.
The North Korean invaders rout the South Koreans and capture Seoul. U.S. forces intervene and eventually turn the tide, creating the prospect that North Korea can successfully be invaded. The president believes that China won't enter the war, but China does enter, forcing U.S. troops to retreat. The commander of our forces in Korea (a legendary general) wants to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese, but the president refuses and removes the commander. A long stalemate ensues. Domestic support for the war evaporates and a new president makes the peace. North Korea remains intact and now has nuclear weapons making it, nearly everyone agrees, a serious threat to the security of the region and of the U.S. In three years of combat, approximately 40,000 Americans are killed.
John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon
Not long after his botched invasion of Cuba, a young president begins a substantial U.S. involvement in South Vietnam in order to save a friendly government from being overthrown by communists. His successor escalates the war substantially, and that president's successor continues to wage war for more than five additional years. By the time it is over, approximately 60,000 Americans have been killed and South Vietnam has fallen to the communists.
Jimmy Carter
Iran, a staunch ally of the U.S., faces revolutionary pressure, the most vigorous of which is exerted by Islamic fanatics. The Shah of Iran looks to his long-time friend, the U.S., for support. The president shows nothing but comtempt and appears indifferent at best to the Shah's survival. The government, totally demoralized, loses its will to remain in power. The Shah falls and, predictably, the Islamic fanatics end up in control.
The new regime takes U.S. embassy personnel as hostages. Now it is the U.S. president who is demoralized and lacking will. Eventually, he orders an absurd rescue plan that fails utterly, bringing even further humiliation on our country. Almost 30 years later, the Islamic fanatics remain in control. They sponsor terrorists and deadly anti-western militias throughout the Middle East. They apparently are close to developing nuclear weapons.
Bill Clinton
Yet another group of anti-western Islamic fanatics is training thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan, and we know it. Terrorists launch a series of strikes against the U.S. -- the World Trade Center, Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies in Africa, the U.S.S. Cole. The terrorists training in Afghanistan are behind most if not all of these attacks. The president does essentially nothing in response. Offered several opportunities to take out the leader of the terrorist group, he declines. Later he will blame his inaction on various U.S. agencies under his control, and on the fact that taking action would have engendered criticism, since he had evaded the draft. Soon after the president leaves office, the Afghan based terrorists launch an attack on U.S. soil that kills approximately 3,000 American.
George W. Bush
Following the deadly attack against the U.S., the new president quickly brings down the regime in Afghanistan that allowed the terrorists to flourish, and routs the terrorist group there. Next, he turns to the regime in Iraq. That regime has been sponsoring terrorism for years and has engaged in the mass murder of its own citizens. It has invaded two of its neighbors, one of which is a U.S. ally. Our intelligence community believes with near unanimity that the regime possesses weapons of mass destruction. It also believes that it is capable of developing nuclear weapons in short order.
The president, strongly supported by Congress, orders an invasion. It proves to be one of the most successful military operations in our history. After toppling the regime and quickly rounding up many of its leaders, the president declares that the mission of unseating the regime is accomplished and that major combat operations have ended. He is wrong.
An insurgency develops. Although the U.S. enables the Iraqis to hold unprecedented democratic elections, enact a cons ution, and elect a government of their choosing, the U.S. has not been able to quell the violence caused by the insurgency and by sectarian conflicts. So far approximately 3,000 Americans have been killed. The deaths continue at a rate of about 50 to 100 per month.
The fate of Iraq has not been settled and the broader consequences of our action there are not yet clear. But based on what we know now, it's difficult to argue that events in Iraq prove President Bush to be, comparatively speaking, even a bad modern-day president, much less our worst president ever.
Got any more "noted" historians?
Ruff can't be here to answer...he's got some indigenous Fiji Islanders to go help supress.
whottt - indeed, I know about the greenhouse gas emissions from planes. They make up about 2.5% of total worldwide emissions and rising rapidly due to the proliferation of cheap air travel over the last decade. Artificially cheap airfares a major problem, and short-haul flights are the worst by comparison with alternatives like car and train travel.
http://www.chooseclimate.org/flying/emit.html (sorry, first source I could find - I knew there was a rule of thumb, but couldn't remember where I read it).A simple "rule of thumb" to remember, is that a plane uses about as much fuel, and therefore produces about as much CO2, as would every passenger driving one car the same distance. So next time you're thinking of flying thousands of miles, think how much petrol you would need to put in a car to go so far. Since take-off uses a disproportionate amount of fuel, short-haul flights emit a bit more per passenger-kilometer, and long-haul flights a bit less.
Note: the car comparison is for typical european cars, not for the less efficient american gas-guzzlers. Trains produce, on the other hand, about 1/3rd as much CO2 per passenger-kilometer (for more details on this see the "ecobalance of the Climate Train" and the bar-chart below), and could potentially be run from renewable sources of electricity.
So if they use so much fuel, why are flights so cheap now? One reason is that not a penny of tax is paid on aircraft fuel.
Fortunate, then, that this year and last year I only drove around 6000km/yr (since I now ride my bike all the time), as against the 15000km/yr I used to drive, which is about average for most Australians. That means I'll account for this trip, in terms of returning to average CO2 emmissions, in about one more year of cycling, even without buying carbon offsets, which I think I will do anyway.
As I've already stated before, people such as myself who believe we have to do something about climate change don't believe we have to stop living our lives or go back to living in caves and eating worms - that simply isn't realistic. We do believe there is a lot we should be doing to curb emissions (reducing our general consumption, using alternative transport, buying renewable energy, investing in efficient technology, etc.), and I do those things in my everyday life. It is the paradigm change towards paying for our pollution that people like me are working for, because once we are paying the true costs for our activities our consumption and investment patterns on a societal level will change for the better in terms of long-term sustainability.
I also feel bad about this trip in terms of CO2, but my friend is getting married, and it will be my last chance to go anywhere for the next 4 years. I'm not going to stop living my life because of climate change, just as no-one else is, but I will try to do my best to reduce my part in it.
Also, the plane was going to America anyway, I just happen to be on it.
Got anymore Power Line blogs to pass off as your own? That was an easy Google, wasn't it -- did you read the one where Karl Rove pimped him? Foner is about as noted as you cen get these days, Linus. I said it was premature, but hey, Pat Buchanan couldn't bring himself to put Bushie above Carter at this point. Go figure.Got any more "noted" historians?
Link to lying Yoni's latest blatant plagiarism.
WTF??? We are staying totally out of the Fijian coup, the 4th in 20 yrs.
Why would you believe that we "suppress" anyone in our region? We send a lot of peacekeepers to trouble spots, as do the New Zealanders, but we don't annex other countries. That's your job. Or the Indonesians.
Oh, and by using the word "indigenous", you display your ignorance even more bluntly. Know where most of the trouble in Fiji comes from? Maily conflict between indigenous Fijians and Indian immigrants who now make up nearly half (38.1%) of the population but have a lot of the money since they are more economically industrious. It appears that this coup has been simmering for some time and relates to the early release from prison of some of the perpetrators of the last coup. It's easy to sling crap, much harder to actually have a clue what you're talking about. Tool.
And as for the hypocrisy you're calling me out for, exactly what the fvck are you doing to lessen your impact on the environment? How many miles a year do you drive? Fly? How many kWh of electricity do you consume, and how is it generated? How much waste do you throw away into landfill? How much do you recycle? How much embodied energy and water do you consume in the crap you buy?
At least I know what my consumption is, and it is significantly below that of an average Westerner, and I will continually strive to drive it lower. This trip is an aberration that I will pay for in terms of time, effort and money.
When I make a consumptive life choice (and I consume very little other than food and utilities - my TV, stereo, video are over 15 yrs old, my car is 12 years old and 2nd hand, I haven't bought any new clothes in 5 years, etc.) I at least make an informed choice. Can you say that?
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 12-05-2006 at 08:37 PM.
So, you didn't read Foner's article. Well at least the guys at Powerline did. Care to address their points?
Besides, you never give attribution to Michael Moore,
I heard it quoted on a tv show.So, you didn't read Foner's article.Because my thoughts are my own. When I quote someone else, I don't lie about who came up with it.Besides, you never give attribution to Michael Moore,
Unlike you.
Liar.Sure.Care to address their points?
Truman: PowerLineBlogger, i.e., the person you lied about being, apparently wanted a nuclear war with China. Truman and Eisenhower are respected, even admired for not doing so.
Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon: Kennedy was killed before he could prove to be anything but mediocre. Johnson's civil rights record and Nixon's opening of China mitigate their failures to only a certain extent. I have no problem putting Bushie on the same level as these if you can find some grand initiative that takes some of the stink off of his nation-building escapade.
Carter: As Buchanan mentioned, a failed presidency. The guy Yoni lied about being wanted to go to war in Iran in 1979 apparently. Doe the guy Yoni lied about being remember that the only reason the Shah was in power in the first place is because the US helped overthrow a democratically elected government in 1953? Maybe, but Yoni sure didn't. Of course, the Egypt-Israel peace accord is the mitigating cir stance here -- if Bushie can pull something like that off in the next two years, we can talk.
Bill Clinton: The guy Yoni lied about being, along with every one of Clinton's opponents, wanted Clinton to do what he didn't want him to do in Kosovo. The guy Yoni lies about being can't have it both ways. If Yoni or anyone he lies about being can show me where they wanted to invade Afghanistan and nation-build over there can post it here.
There you go.
All my own thoughts.
No lies about who I am.
Too bad Yoni can't do the same.
Bushie has two more years to secure his legacy as the not-worst president ever.
Tick-tock.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 12-05-2006 at 08:54 PM.
Well, funny I should run into your post. I was just and will continue
shortly to watch on the History Channel about the little ice age
in the 13th century. And according to the narrator and all the
talking heads, it could happen again at any time. How strange. I
wonder if I should buy a copy and send to Gore.
Anyhow RNR, enjoy your planning, get everything done and come
on over to our fair city. Just remember that our "river walk" is
not really a river and is more of a creek and that it would go dry
if not for pumping water into it from our drinking water source.
Go figure.
Enjoy the trip and I do really hope you enjoy San Antonio.
Good luck, Ruff!
Oh, and RNR, I plan on polluting for the rest of my life. Dang'd if
I am going to peddle this old butt of mine anywhere, well maybe on
a street corner to the girls, I am so good looking I'm sure they will
pay for my services.
Well, someone who actually is Yoni, but Yoni lied about not being said Bushie is going to be on Mount Rushmore.
Is lying a compulsion or a hobby for you?
Thanks pp.
Ray, I've been to SA before and I do feel it is like a home away from home, so I will have a wonderful time, thanks.
Later all. Enjoy the brawl!
Nice of Pixel pusher to give you a complete free pass on being a pollution monger...
The Lib credo is pretty obvious...hate Bush, provide aid and comfort for a medievil and unenlightened terrorist movement, blame America, and about everything....this makes you a good person, regardless of how well you walk your own talk.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
