j_b

Remember how our favorite jackass (FW) has the gall to claim that leftists despise the common man. What an hypocrite.

When extradition of a major criminal is impossible, rendition should probably be considered. In other words, giving more power to another bad guy because he'll do our bidding? You people will never learn. If nabbing the bad guy is likely to create significant blowback, it isn't worth it, at least not to joe average and the nation.

Is the post-911 approach dissociable from the pre-911 approach? Is the rise of islamic extremism also blowblack from decades of meddling (to put it mildly) by the west in middle east politics? Wasn't it decided in the 80's that we'd prop up the warlords and islamists instead of the moderates so that Afghanistan would become the soviet's Vietnam? Post-911 policies are what they are because objectives are much different than just punishing the culprits and preventing another 911.

Lots of things in there but 2 comments which are in my opinion essential to this kind of discussion. First, there is historical context because none of these issues arise in a vaccum. I note that you mention carpet bombing during WW2 when there is little doubt of who was the agressor but you unsurprisingly didn't choose to discuss carpet bombing Vietnam-Laos-Cambodia, or bombing Iraq for years between the 2 gulf wars, arming and training the contras who terrorized the Nicaraguan country side by butchering teachers and peasants, help Pinochet achieve his reign of terror through torturing his opponents out of existence, among numerous similar examples. Your reducing the issue to "we had to choose the least bad of means to achieve good" and to tactical considerations applies to perhaps a small fraction of instances when there was, perhaps, little choice but to choose the least bad means to achieve a noble end. In other word, your unsaid premise of "we good, them bad" doesn't really hold in many instances and certainly doesn't justify appealing to "we had little choice" because the end wasn't a noble one. Second, and I have already said this, which you ignored: there is a huge difference between legalizing terror (torture for example) and doing it under the table, even when it isn't to achieve a noble end. I assume I don't need to elaborate on what it means to democracy to have terror enabled by the rule of law, its effect on the culture of security agencies and on political opposition. So no, Obama's decision is way more than a PR move to present a different facade beacuse it has large implications for the future of democracy in america.

I'll answer your question if you can make a case that climbing would somehow legitimize someone's argument. In the meantime, you should also consider taking a class in elementary logic.

He is far from being the only one not to have changed his tune so it's useless to pretend most everyone did. Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, for example, was asking those very same questions. Anyway, rendition, as in kidnapping people who have committed serious crimes to bring them to justice when extradition isn't possible, merrits serious consideration, but that is completely different than just shipping people to places where human rights don't exists. Despite the long standing history of these terrible practices, there isn't a way yet to tell which way the Obama administration will aply them.

It's fine to ask others where they draw the line, but where do YOU draw the line?

here comes the quasi-monosyllabic idiot. When was the last time you actually responded with an argument? can you remember?

hear, hear!

I know that arguing toe to toe with the rightwing is distasteful to people like you but you fail to realize that 3rd grade level rhetoric and below is what has set this country's course for decades now. Millions listen to fucking rush limbaugh and until you recognize that fact and get your pretty hands dirty, the barbarians will keep running all over you.

Of course, why didn't I think that pointing out Fairweather intellectual bankruptcy was a sign of mental deficiency?

Isn't it interesting that PP finally learned the concept of fear mongering. After 8 years of 'nucular holocaust' rhetoric and much more in the same vein, PP now decided that it'd be nice to portray Obama as a fear monger (never mind the 600,000 who lost their jobs in January alone)

In fact, according to the Washington Post, as of 2002 Moon had spent 1.7 billions in subsidies on the Washington Times. In turn the COlumbia Journalism Review said it was 2 billions as of 2002. I'd say the man has an agenda ... which doesn't include reporting the news. as of 2006: The GOP $3 billion propaganda organ

I almost let this one go: "J_B doesnt state that because he can't resist the opportunity to call someone names..yet again..." PP who has spent the better part of the last decade calling out imagined commies and terrorists on this board, now think it is a bad thing to call a propaganda rag, owned by reverend Moon himself, the Moonie Times. Note, this "newspaper" has not made a penny and has lost 10's of millions since Moon bought it more than 20 years ago. Ah, yes, I forgot: it was required reading for the Reagan administration.

and the rest of the article tells how the numbers concerned a fraction of the package, which has since been changed. The article I cited was written on Jan 23, while the Moonie Times managed to reprint the same garbage more than a week later. As I said, we can always count on them to muddy the waters and throw their weight with the scoundrels.

Yep, these were the times of "if you're not with us, you're against us", when the meatheads were looking for 'traitors' and 'raghead lovers' under every rock. The democrats who bent over should pay for it too.

"We did not issue any report, any analysis or any study," a CBO aide told the Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/23/a-controversial-cbo-repor_n_160495.html always trust the Moonie Times to muddy the waters and throw its weight with the scoundrels.

Exactly, what did you like so much in the 8 trillions dollars Bush committed to invading Iraq, bailing out and giving insecured loans to the banksters? Be specific.

Are you saying there is no difference besides appearances between legalizing torture and doing it on the sly? I think you'll find there is a world of difference in term of what the former does to democracy, even if doing it on the sly is still immoral and wrong.

Per usual, no link to substantiate your ravings. Is it the moment I am supposed to say that others should ignore you? just asking. and when you provide a link, of course it's out of wingnut central.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

The eastern shoulder of Lundin is supposed to be sandstone and volcs like Red mtn, but the western side of the peak is granodiorite. I think I recall the rock changes right around the summit. I still don't think the background topography behind the rappeler is around Lundin (at least not looking south) but,has anyone done the rappel into commonwealth basin from the eastern shoulder of Lundin? I believe the wall trends due south for a short section around where the rap is supposed to be and it may be that Guye would be in the background from that location.

Good find Mike. It now seems obvious, doesn't it? . I too thought that Klenke was onto something solid. In case someone is interested, the rock in the picture is a metavolcanic with some other stuff in it. Now, where is mystery crag? Lowell, didn't Dickert also spend some time climbing in the Tetons? but, this might be a wild goose chase.

This is a great link JB, thank you. Please don't take this as criticism or another ad-hominum attack because I don't mean it to be, but in reading this one (which I'm not kidding, I think is very very good) it struck me that what you often link to support one of your rants is another rant form another person that is also equally unsupported. ???? This is a journal article that resumes academic research published in a book. If you want notes supporting his research you'll have to read the book that you'll find on google books. here as far as the other article (by david Cay Johnston) I linked to in the other thread, again it is a journal article which resumes what he wrote in several books and you'll again find references and data in the original work. here as to the meat of your criticism,it is rare that anyone around here supports their diatribes with links to academic work, including yourself. So why should I be held to a higher standard than others? http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6817

yeah, well ... if all threads devolving into mud wrestling were aborted, there would be few political threads left in spray. You know the saying, when wrestling with a pig, not only do you end up covered with mud but the pig likes it too.