Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Everything posted by MtnGoat

  1. annoyed by pro war commercial

    I knew you guys would like that ad.......That's why I kicked in to help pay for it! Free speech and all, you know how it is.
  2. More setbacks

    There's no reason those issues should not be used as leverage points. If you expect aid or money from someone, you need to accept that their choice of when to cut that money off is also within their power.
  3. getting cats to think it was their idea

    Cats are so persistent you'll basically need to put something up there that will make it uncomfortable to hang out there. With our cloud-o-cats at home, we've gotten a lot of practice at dealing with this. But practice doesn't always mean anything, sometimes we win (rare), sometimes it's a draw, a lot of time, kitty(s)wins. As you know, any physical shooing (squirt bottles, bad kitty , etc) only works when you're around, and once they catch on, will then only work when they see you actually grab the squirt bottle. Unfortunately you'll probably have to make the top of your monitor look pretty silly. They hate walking on crumpled foil that crinkles and moves under their feet, so that's one idea. They also hate tape, so a few strategically placed strips of double sided tape might do it, or sticky side out loops of regular tape. I love the small rolls of chicken wire idea, I'm going to use that one. If kitty isn't horking after every grub inhale-athon, maybe it's just easier on your nerves to let kitty win. Sometimes this is just the way it works out. Gotta love 'em!
  4. The UK Press - again!

    That pic of Chirac is priceless!
  5. France and its war record

    yeah, but *their* meddling somehow doesn't count, while our does, right?

    MtnGoat said: I was explaining why terrorism is not measured by not negotiating with them. Why make it harder on yourself (and us) by throwing in tangential musings?" There's nothing tangential about it. You made the statement we're terrorists for not negotiating! I'm pointing out negotiation has no role in determining what terror is or isn't. It's using civilians as primary targets intentionally that is terrorism, not refusing to negotiate. "We will have to disagree on this. I think paying attention to how the wind is blowing is a smart thing to do. " All it is is mob mentality, no different from any other insupportable ideal based in relativity. Wether or not the wind blew and supported slavery, it was still wrong. Wether or not the wind blows and support forcing women to wear burkhas, it's still wrong. Values derived from ideals that do not depend on who feels what this week, and something else next year are not dependent on the wind blowing. "It is obvious, from your history in these discussions, that openness to alternative viewpoints is not something you value highly." You're completely wrong. This is like the "listening" thingo. You assume because I disagree, I'm not listening. I am. I can use the *exact* same evidence to show your lack of openess to my ideas. There are all kinds of disparate viewpoints, and I read 'em all and balance them. Just like anyone else, I apply values I hold to them, and judge them. Don't tell me you have no values you apply to new ideas? Of course you do. Does that make you non openminded? Of course not. It merely means you test the new ideas, and that's precisely what I do too. "Your support for our current course of disregard for world opinion is not surprising." That's because opinion does not represent the gold standard for right and wrong, in my value system. No matter how many people believe something, they can still be wrong. This inevitably means that majority is no test of morality. "Then, I don't think the fact that votes are valid public input invalidates other methods of informing the government as to your preferences." No one has said protest is not a valid form of expression. But it's not a valid form of claiming a repeatable, measurable majority. For all we know, the folks out there are 99% of the same folks who opposed Bush anyway. How is this supposed to represent everyone? You certainly don't represent me, or lots and lots of others. Go ahead and mill around in the streets, but I am not interested in having your doing so as representing a majority.

    that new europe/old europe comment was right on the mark and needed to be said. Neither France nor Germany, any longer have reason to be considered part of the only meaningful, active, free Europe as their neighbors are no longer constrained behind a wall of oppression. The statements by Chirac merely show exactly how they view those other nations newly freed, and how Chirac and old Europes disdain of upstarts is shown. We ought to offer NAFTA to new Europe so they can tell the EU to stuff it.

    "I was explaining why the terrorists are so scary. I don't know what you're reply has to do with that." I was explaining why terrorism is not measured by not negotiating with them. The conditions you list apply to domestic criminals too, yet no one claims they're not criminals just because we shoot them if necessary, don't listen to their explanations of why raping people was Ok for them, or allow them to escape prosecution because they're holding hostages. "Semantic BS. Bush's statements are to the effect that he finds domestic and world opinion valueless." Semantics mean things. When you say Bush isn't listening, what you mean is he doesn't agree. Claiming people aren't listening when your standard isn't listening, but wether they agree, isnt' supportable. "Once again, I am confused by what your point is." My point is specifically what I said it was. You complain about the loss of some liberties, but do not include all the other liberties removed daily, and increasingly, by social activists. My right to speak out comes from the same source as my right to be free of unlawful detainment, and from the same source as my right to control my own labor, beliefs, and property: ownership of myself and my body. If you're going to legitimately complain (IMO you are) about loss of liberties, just don't forget to include all the other liberties lost each time someone on either side of the aisle reaches into your pocket, your home, your buisness, or your private life. "Once again, baffled by your comments, but you seem to be under the impression that somehow attacking Iraq will weaken Al Queda." No, attacking Iraq will weaken and destroy one more state sponsor of Islamic fascism. Al Queda is only one issue, Iraqui support of other Islamic fascists is a facet of the same problem. It's not just Al Queda, it's any nation that arms and supports Islamic fascism. Since they have not responded to other methods, this is what's left. Other nations we have better relations with, and are able to pursue this issue with without resorting to force. "Is it inconceivable that perhaps views have changed on this topic since November? Is it inconceivable that many people may have voted Republican in November but did not favor the US unilaterally invading Iraq?" Not at all. But one could apply this logic to anyone elected, the very next day. Demonstrations, no matter how large, do not invalidate elections nor law. "I think Bush could have done better in his response to what I thought was an overwhelming display by the entire world." A teensy tiny fraction of the "entire" world participated. With a current population of billions, a few million is not the entire world. In addition, the entire world has no say with US action or security. We are not a world democracy and our actions are not up for a vote by them, nor should they be. "His attempt to villify those who would view this dramatic display as valid public input by using the negative buzzword "focus groups" was lame." It's not valid public input. Votes are valid public input. Making it clear public policy is conducted and measured by law is the correct action.

    "if you believe that 17% (mid-term election vote for Bush) of the potential vote constitutes a mandate for anything (especially this craziness), it is a sad commentary on your concept of democracy. " I'll ask you again, like you refused to answer the last time you tried this, how you support any action not based on support of 51% of all possible voters? You cannot show that level of support for any president, or any agenda. Yet you're certainly not above trying this out to attack other agendas. Using your own apparent standard, show us what has had a mandate.

    I know I didn't say it because I wouldn't say demonstrations mean anyone should leave office. They're ways of showing feelings, fine, but that's not enough to changes situations which are to determined by legal means. I would never make that comment on Chavez. Use the search engine. You don't have to read every post.

    "Saying that a Republican administration in office means the majority of Americans must agree with anything that administration does in the future is an idiotic statement" It sure is! Who said it? I'll hep' you beat up on them a bit.

    "well if it wasnt you who was it??? don't just stand there telling me im wrong, research and find out who DID say it." You want me to spend time backing up *your* statements, which you made in error! Dream on! Your inclusion of me by error doesn't put an obligation on me to do your homework for you! it was someone making 5 paragraph rebuttals to sexy choco... you think IM gonna look thru 15 pages of that BSpay again

    "Voting for a representative does not imply agreement with all their future actions. The further apart the vote and the action in question are, the more tenuous the argument that the vote implies agreement with the action." The actions against Al Queda, Iraq, and other were in full view during the election. With this in mind, I suggest that the future actions probable to the people already making these moves were very predictable, and thus this vote was supportive of these moves. In other words, the future actions were already written on the wall at the time of the election, and they got the go ahead. "So how can it be implied that, by voting for the current administration, I agree with any decision they might make? " I can't. That is, of course, not how it works. You go with someone on a rather broad basis. But the fact remains that all of these actions and probabilities were in plain view at the time of the election. Any action at that time determined what was to come next. It's kind of funny really. Leading up to the election, we had the left telling us constantly on talk shows, commentary, and opinion columns that the Nov elections were the chance to stop Bush's agenda, stop the war machine and all the rest of it, and a referendum on Bush and his policies. We had people chanting and screaming at the Wellstone memorial, heartfelt pleas to repudiate the bad republicans and save us all from the imperialistic clutches of their charred capitalist warmongering unilateralist hearts. Comment after comment on how Bush needed to be stopped. And ya know what? In the sense that this represented the chance to take a national pulse on a measurable level, I agreed, and was on the edge of my seat waiting to see how it went. In response... the nation hands control to Republicans. Horrors! Now, gee, the election doesn't mean anyone really agreed with anything on the table and didn't indicate support either. Voting them out would have meant non support, but keeping them in doesn't mean anything. In fact, from the same folks making the most noise you don't hear much at all about the election. After all the words about not having a mandate and the election being a referendum on Bush... they don't like the results.

    "What was it that was/is sooo scary about those terrorists? It was/is that they will not listen to reason. You cannot negotiate with them. All they want is us dead." We don't negotiate with any number of criminals either. What a rapist, murderer, or psychopath wants is irrelevant. We don't measure a stance against them by wether those who oppose them negotiate with them. We don't measure a stance agaisnt murderers by wether it's necessary to shoot them to keep them from killing more people. This argument is simply relativism devoid of any recognition of context. "One of them who will not listen to anyone." Since when was listening synonomous with agreement? I'm listening to you, and yet still do not agree. Not agreeing is not proof someone isn't listening. "(Consistent with our attempts to protect our liberties by removing them)" I'm certain you also are consistent and apply this thinking to "protection" of our freedom by removal of the liberty to put what you want in your body, hire who you want, sell what you want to willing customers, control your own private property, and other such issues. Liberties are not just those you are referring to here, they encompass every issue of a persons right to own their own bodies, their actions, and their labor. Until such time as you are as concerned about *all* liberties of peaceful people, including the liberties daily curtailed as part of a domestic agenda for social "good", excuse me if I don't take this very seriously. " There are no voiced reasons to attack Iraq that are logically consistent with reality and actions we are taking in the rest of the world. " Sure there are. We're taking action in concert with nations all over the world that work with us, witness the Al Queda arrests all over europe, in SE asia and pacific and elsewhere. We're working with all the nations that we have relations good enough to cooperate with, and taking action also against the ones who won't. Each differing nation has a different set of circumstances and necessitates different treatment. Your refusal to acknowledge all these ongoing efforts does not mean they are not happening, and it does not mean our actions are not consistent with what the goal is. "Plus, we are acting like we don't care what the rest of the world or even our own populace thinks!!" What our populace thinks was voted on in Nov 2002, when Reps were handed control of both house and senate. What some very loud people do in the streets, is counterbalanced fully by the results in the midterm.

    "How are 2002 election results even remotely related to worldwide public reaction to events in 2003?" Because those that control public policy of the US are US citizens, not the public worldwide, and rightly so. "Is racial segregation ok because it was approved by voters at one time, even though times and opinions have changed?" Nope. And it's still not OK when practiced by "progressives" intent on using discrimination for their purposes. It seems we both agree some issues are simply not within the purview of a majority to vote on. "Democracy is not confined to the restricted venue of the polls. The First Amendment guarantees that." No, it guarantees free speech. The rest of the constitution clearly outlines the operation of constitutional democracy. And taking "vote" by mob demonstration is not listed.

    "Chavez is the democratically elected "socialist" president of Venezuela MtnGoat was calling on to resign before his term ended, just because there's big protests against him in his country." If you're gonna use me in your statements, better make sure I said what you claim. I never commented on Chavez.

    "basically he states that public opinion means little to him. no duh!" Actual public opinion on his policies was provided with the election blowout of Nov 2002. A zillion appeasement monkeys in the streets isn't democracy, it's a mob.
  18. Action Against a War

    enough said. So you A) oppose relationships of any kind with regimes having practices you don't like or B) think we should bomb them too or c) think we should work with who can? It's nice and easy to sit way up on that tower and deplore all govts you don't like. Who doesn't? But you've made the case diplomacy is called for, and in most instances, I agree, so what I see here is convenient on the basis you can point to relations elsewhere where we can work with them without going to war, and yet you find fault with this as well.
  19. Action Against a War

    "oh yeah, 1) we impose sanctions that are ultimately responsabe for the death of 100,000's " why isn't the man misusing the money responsible for those deaths? It is, after all, a socialist nation and therefore responsible by definition for how it's resources are used. "we gear up for war upon a people on the brink of starvation," I'm certain you will not find one cruise missile aimed at starving civilians. "3) we supported this same regime for years as we knew all along what it was up to, " Does that mean we should not correct our actions now? If we do something wrong before, that means we can't do right, later? What an interesting standard. "and 4) we justify our actions by saying we want to prevent the persecution of dissidents while we continue supporting other regimes with similar practices." No, we jusitify them them with the persecution of dissidents + his lack of disarmament. Those other regimes with similar practices, we have better relations with. You're the one telling us war should be a last resort, and with regimes we can work with without war, I agree. "Only the fools and the ignorant would buy such a scenario." And of course those who disagree with you, are one or both. Such an elegant display of precisely how you value dissent from your viewpoint.
  20. Action Against a War

    "Fairweather understands, votes for Nader! And gives me a foot massage." Fairweather (and I) already understand Nader. That's precisely why we'll never vote for him. All one needs to do is read his plans for everyone, to see that it's just one more take on socialism, with the everpresent fallacy of "we'll do it right this time, because we *really* care" fully included at no extra charge. Unless you count near total loss of your right to own your own body, life, choices, beliefs, actions, and labor, of course.
  21. Action Against a War

    "as usual MtnGoat's cynicism knows no bound." Taking into account what really occurs in Iraq, may be cynicism for you, for me and others, it's called accepting reality. You can complain about cynicism all you like, that doesn't empty the Iraqi torture chambers nor does it divert food for oil money from Saddam to it's intended recipients, his people. Supporting a path where no deaths occur seems real nice of course, but since that path doesn't exist in reality, supporting it doesn't really do much. "It is well documented that if the Iraqis are starving today it is due to the sanctions we keep enforcing." You're not in favor of sanctions? "UNICEF estimates that 350,000 children under 5 have died since 1991, this number is in addition to the typical death rate prior to the 1990 gulf war." Does UNICEF account for the diversion of funds to weapons programs by Saddam? "I hope everyone is noticing that most of the grandiose diatribes above are not supported by any links to reputable articles." It's "grandiose" to point out diversion of oil money to weapons instead of food, or point out the ongoing horrors in Saddams basements? Ignoring it, or using "grandiose", doesn't change it's reality. Those who've been doing their reading know both of these items are factual, wether or not they agree with our actions on Iraq. I really don't see they point of wasting anyone's time providing more links to what anyone here discussing this already knows. I'd rather waste it discussing what we know already, means from other angles. A direct question: Are you denying Saddam is diverting food money? Are you denying Saddams use of torture? "As they say, the ideologues come out of the woodwork and the innocents pay the price. " And of course *you're* no idealogue, only someone with ideals who argues for them, judges their own actions and those of others by them. But not an idealogue, of course not. And it's impossible any innocent could pay the price for your non ideology, of course. Right.
  22. Action Against a War

    add another one iain. it's quite something to have someone counting my posts, as well as keeping track of when I am logged on!
  23. Action Against a War

    "Doesn't anyone here follow the Israeli situation? Tighten the clamps, and even more attacks begin." Merely because they are not permitted to actually take decision action in this war, it's maintained in slow motion by people who think peace is a "process" divorced from military realities.
  24. Action Against a War

    "Their stance whatever the underlying motivations has no immediate death-and-life consequence, unfortunately ours does. " It surely does. It has immediate life and death circumstances for every person starving under Saddams rule, for every person currently being disembowled while hanging from chains, and every person in the truck on the way to the basement, as well as those who'll be in the truck tomorrow, next week, next month, next year. The fiction that this is a situation where the options are deaths or no deaths is just that, a fiction. Deaths are occuring right no, no action will still result in these deaths, there are no "no death" options. Only options where it continues off into the future with no end in sight, and some thousands elsewhere additionally wind up dead, or those options where 4 months from now people are no longer gutted in his basements, no longer starved by sanctions, and no longer threatened by stockpiles hidden from inspectors. By all means, support the option where the basements continue for a few more years, or decades. But don't tell us how the issue isn't life and death, cause it is.
  25. Action Against a War

    "France's chancellor has been blasting the other nations for agreeing with the US." Course he is. The byzantine diplomatic and regulatory mess that is the EU, is uniquely suited as a way for the French to regain the relevance they are sure they deserve. If they can't have military relevance, they'll settle for beurocratic supremacy, which in a situation like the EU is plenty good enough. As for the new Europe, they've lived under very similar conditions present in Iraq, and watched as the usual apologists in the west defended their oppressors for decades, with the same arguments the same people use now : Don't antagonize them, they're only violent because of our actions, look at how many weapons we have, you're warmongers, standing up to them will start WWIII, and all the rest. They know how it feels to be trapped on the inside, as lenins "useful idiots" parade around unintentionally supporting their killers, but doing so out of caring. They ought to take the attacks on their support as a sign of things to come should they make the mistake of signing onto the EU. These socialists value unity more than correct action, "consensus" more than results, and this blasting of them for *daring* to disagree with France is only the tiniest taste of the political subjugation they will be placed under. One merely need look at the ongoing circus as the EU fights over speaking with "one voice" as if this is a measure of policy worth anything. What we ought to do is extend NAFTA to Eastern Europe and allow them to join a large trading bloc that will not demand their fealty to eurotrash socialists, the ongoing still unfolding disaster of their economics, and the duress they will endure once joined, as already shown by Chirac. Seems to me he has it backwards, he says prospective members don't get as much leeway as established ones, but that betrays precisely how he views prospective members.