Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
- who wouldn't like to believe in Political or social reasons for this Revolution thingy - but
even the 'mother of all Revolutions - the Frenchy one started with a cash flow problem.
Louis XVI needed some dough and at the beginning of 1789, he called the Estates General to vote him more money. The Estates General passed, and the Parisians supported the Estates General and decided on a little Bastille storming. That's how it works dude - all the other 'agendas' you have to try on a different planet!
who had this theory that even the American revolution was mainly a 'money thing' -' the British came up with this series of trading regulations that minimized wealth and stymied economic growth in the colonies. These really p... us of much more than any political differences between Britain and the colonies... (and I always was so proud of this freedom thing)
So what che pasa?
You don't think it was a "peaceful Revolution?"
I would call it more of a coup. And not all that peaceful. And they aren't letting go without a fight.
The man was correct. Plus, all the myths about religious freedom and the King's tyranny were nonsense.
they are not at all utterly passive about THE core issues- their economic well being - and you will notice that in the coming month - and you even can call it a 'right wing rebellion' if it pleases you!
First faulty premise:
To make this concrete: If Bush had waterboarded high-value AQ captures during the first week after 9/11 in an effort to discover whether other plots were imminent, then most Americans would have excused him, I believe.
I'd like to know, bgonne, if you, or anyone here, was willing to stake your life on this premise. Are you willing to forfeit our nation's reputation and standing for this?
Has it been proven, to your satisfaction, that they had the right guys in the first place? Say it was some 19 Arabs (allegedly mostly from Saudi Arabia and Morocco, so who knows how Iran or Iraq plays a part here), when did you ever see a scintilla of evidence that Bush caught anybody with any information after 9/11? Have you seen a trial? How can you agree to torture someone for a phantom notion?
"I would call it more of a coup. And not all that peaceful. And they aren't letting go without a fight."-- Retzilian
What makes you think they'll let go even with a fight?
Way back when.....one of the tactics discussed by the Right, when talking about reclaiming their country, was to spend us into oblivion so that there would be no money available for so-called Great Society programs. All this happy horseshit talk about smaller government, lower taxes, etc., is merely a ruse to their mouthbreathing base. They, the Right, don't care about the size of government as long as that government does what they want and forces each of us to do it also.
Insha'Jesus.
did you ever watch the interview with THE Donald when he trashed Bush - didn't he sound much better than adnoto?
So my nomination for Revolutionary of the weeks stands - THE DONALD!
and sorry Che Pasa , adnoto, heru - in comparison you are just a bunch of amateurs!
I am focused on what works. If waterboarding NEVER works, then there simply is no argument for it. Period. If it ALWAYS works, then there are circumstances where it can be justified, morally at least in my view. The hard questions arise b/c we have no such certainties to guide us.-- wbgonne
Your "argument" has been a poor one from the outset, but now it has wandered of into the absurd. Since torture is out of the question, period, the following is only for your benefit.
We are certain that waterboarding doesn't "always" work. We are also certain that waterboarding leads to dead US soldiers and an everlasting stain on our country in the eyes of the world. You seem to be advocating for the The One Percent Doctrine. How Dick Cheney of you.
Incidentally, ponsa ponsa time (little family joke - my son used to say "ponsa ponsa time" in lieu of "Once upon a time")...I dated a guy named Jeb who hailed from Wilmington, DE, a rather wealthy young man...but I digress.
Your comment about the Right spending us into paralysis goes along with my comment a few days ago when I said the timing of this economic crash is extremely suspicious.
Glad to see I'm not alone.
could name the Donald the most promising 'anarchist' of the coming month too (after the Detroit Three) because after he is finished with his no paybacktime a lot more banks will need
a lot more government money. And that's what you really can call distributing the depth!
As another poster pointed out, having responsibility for outcomes does wonderful things to concentrate the mind, and clear the fog of fantasy.
Happily, as expected, a vote for Obama has resulted in a pragmatic approach to government. I have little doubt he will govern more conservatively than McCain and with charisma intact. Life is good.
Censor anyone who discusses how voting for more Democrats might not be the solution to our country's civil liberties "problem"?? Yeah, that's a mature and productive solution...
No, ban anyone who repeatedly engages in trollish behavior, like ad hom attacks on people whom they disagree and can't have a respectful discussion with, who go into psychotic meltdown mode instead. Or do you believe that refering to someone as "dickless" is a reasonable way to make one's point about the sorts of topics regularly discussed here?
Plus, spare me the silliness over "censorship". This is Glenn's blog. He can ban anyone for any reason, and no one who posts here has a constitutional or legal "right" to "free speech" here. It's a private forum, not a constitutionally protected one. And obviously I'm not against allowing people to express their opinions here or engage in strong debate, and in my experience Glenn has never banned anyone for merely expressing strong opinions that differ from his or anyone else's here. I just want the discussions here to be more or less respectful, civil, intelligent and honest, or else it's impossible to have meaningful ones. People who get into full-on rant mode with people whom they disagree with are simply showing everyone how infantile and idiotic they are, and add nothing to the discussion here. One wins arguments with facts, logic and rhetoric, not with rants and insults. Some might disagree. They're welcome to start their own blogs.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
