jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
You keep saying that. What are some of the things that you don't like?
Goodbye Obama, Hello Ron Paul
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
Mainly his ideas on defense and related issues. He strikes me as an isolationist to some degree or another. I like his tax ideas, but unless he has a veto proof congress that will never happen. Can you really imagine the IRS going away? I think he is a straight up honest guy. I would see him in more of a health care guru type role. While I think he might be better than Obama as CNC I don't believe he would be good enough. Just my opinion.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
LOS .... you really are largely unfamiliar with the man and his positions, aren't you ?
..... Ron Paul is the exact antithesis of an isolationist ....
Unless of course, if you consider trying to meddle in everyone elses's business, impose ourselves into their affairs, violate their human rights thru the use of force to the point of armed conflict and illegal war to be "non-isolationist" .... well then, yeah, he's an isolationist ....
He is a principled enough person to believe that if we demand certain rights for ourselves, we ought to extend those rights to others - in light of where those rights come from, and the fact that they are inalienable.
That is not a foregone conclusion - all it takes is a simple majority to pass .... and a the lack of someone who is violently enough opposed in the Senate to filibuster it ....
Yes, I absolutely can - well, at least as we know it.
That one ya got right
I'm sorry but if this isn't an example of "pre-conceived notions" and "fixed ideas" ...... what a crack up:
"Ron Paul is a medical doctor, therefore that must be the only thing that he has ever done .... or that he can ever do ....."
Well, in the time you spending waiting around for the absolute ideal candidate to appear so that you can support them, the Republic may perish for lack of action ....
Understand ..... everyone is entitled, and certainly, most have one ....
Last edited:
Wrong big time on one thing for sure my friend. I don't think he would be good on medical issues only because he is an MD. I have heard him speak on the subject, very learned, very even keeled. I think that is where he is best suited. He sounded like he had a VERY good grasp on the subject. That is why I said that.
I have read his voting record, both in the past and again lately. I like a lot of it but there is one big concern that I have that throws up my red flag. Far too many NV's in there. I can understand a no vote, or a yes vote. I might not always agree either way but that is how it is. To my way of thinking, too many NV's show a tendency to being wishy washy. Might not be true, just an observation. I would have to ask him on each issue why he decided not to vote. I tend to gravitate to a more "black and white" kinda candidate, don't to well in shades of gray. Just how I am.
As to the republic failing if I wait for the "perfect" candidate, well, that candidate will never come. I know that. As I said in the past, if Ron Paul runs, I will vote against who ever he is running against, but I ALWAYS vote. Don't have the right to complain if I don't and then what would I do to kill time?
What you might call meddling, I call playing offense. In my world the best defense is always a good offense. Our differences on that issue are based in our differences in life experiences. We will never convince the other. We will have to disagree on that one.
How went the work on the truck? We are still here and still bored.
I have read his voting record, both in the past and again lately. I like a lot of it but there is one big concern that I have that throws up my red flag. Far too many NV's in there. I can understand a no vote, or a yes vote. I might not always agree either way but that is how it is. To my way of thinking, too many NV's show a tendency to being wishy washy. Might not be true, just an observation. I would have to ask him on each issue why he decided not to vote. I tend to gravitate to a more "black and white" kinda candidate, don't to well in shades of gray. Just how I am.
As to the republic failing if I wait for the "perfect" candidate, well, that candidate will never come. I know that. As I said in the past, if Ron Paul runs, I will vote against who ever he is running against, but I ALWAYS vote. Don't have the right to complain if I don't and then what would I do to kill time?
What you might call meddling, I call playing offense. In my world the best defense is always a good offense. Our differences on that issue are based in our differences in life experiences. We will never convince the other. We will have to disagree on that one.
How went the work on the truck? We are still here and still bored.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
It appears that I have either oil or ATF in my coolant .....
Hope it's something cheap and easy .... like the radiator or oil cooler ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Well LOS, I can't be right all of the time ....... and it was just a guess
I'm sure he does ......
Fair enough .....
.... as compared to what, or who ?
FWIW, since he was elected he's NV'ed roughly 10% of the time (886 NV's out of 8853 votes over what ... 7 terms and 13+ year ?) .... doesn't seem terribly excessive to me ....
...... or to have been absent at the time the vote was taken ....
.... sometimes things aren't always black and white.
Doesn't appear to be necessarily true - unless you know he was there at all times when the votes were being taken....
If you look at the graph at the following link:
Ron Paul Missed Votes
...... notice how his NV percentage value often hovers around (slightly above or below) the median value for all representatives, and in at least three instances there is also a spike in NV's from other members ... perhaps indicating some event where many members are not present for some reason or another .....
Two of Paul's three really high NV peaks (which represent a significant amount of votes missed) center around the time period where he declared his candidacy for President in March 2007.
There is also one high peak in Q3/4 of 2004 .... dunno what that was (could be a hard fought re-election campaign for his House seat)
Yeah ..... to really know why he didn't vote, you would .... either that, or perhaps check the historical record and see if he was even present (dunno if that's possible)
I tend to wanna go more with a full-spectrum - I realize that black and white do indeed exist ....... but I also realize that there almost an infinite number of shades of gray inbetween the two ....
Good - balancing the realistically obtainable with the ideal is ..... practical ....
LOL - I hear ya !
Yes ..... offense is an interesting word .....
Offensive ..... Offend .... Offender .....
In my world the best defense is not going out of my way to do things that are offensive to others, respecting their rights and property to the same extent that I would have them respect mine, thereby avoiding pizzing them off unnecessarily for no good reason ......
So far, over 50+ plus years, this operating basis seems to be working out fairly well .... for myself, as well as others apparently ....
Oh ... yeah .... there's been a dikhead or two that's come down the pike occassionally, every now and then .... who, for no apparent reason, seems to want to make himself a target and me or someone else his executioner ..... but really, they are actually fairly rare as a percentage of humanity ....
Undoubtedly .....
Never say never
Hope ya got out .... or will soon.
Last edited:
"Yes ..... offense is an interesting word .....
Offensive ..... Offend .... Offender ....."
How many football games are won without offense? Hockey games? Was WWII won by sitting back and just waiting?
The military world is nasty. It is a nasty business. You might not like it. It might not make sense to your beliefs. You also know that, at least in today's world, it is needed.
Most teams lose when they go on a "prevent defense", ever notice that?
Nothing is as simple as it seems on the surface. Two things I learning in my career. While time seems to move fast to the individual, in reality it moves very slowly and few things ever change. I was amazed when I started to study the Soviets to find that what applied in 1950 was exactly the same in 1977.
Only SOME of the cast and a few toys had changed, nothing else.
The other thing that I learned was, there is now, has always been in the past and most likely will always be in the future, Hitler types. If you don't take it to them, they WILL bring it to you.
As to Ron Paul's NV record, I think 10% is too high for anyone. Like I said though, I would have to find out why on each case. As to them spiking when he started running, well, I am of the opinion that once a seated congressmen or senator starts a run they should give up their seat. Why should my tax dollars continue to pay their wages for them to run? Same with their re elections and the presidents bids, once it starts you don't get paid. When I pay a person to do a job I expect 100% out of them. They are grossly overpaid and under performers, just about every single one of them.
Offensive ..... Offend .... Offender ....."
How many football games are won without offense? Hockey games? Was WWII won by sitting back and just waiting?
The military world is nasty. It is a nasty business. You might not like it. It might not make sense to your beliefs. You also know that, at least in today's world, it is needed.
Most teams lose when they go on a "prevent defense", ever notice that?
Nothing is as simple as it seems on the surface. Two things I learning in my career. While time seems to move fast to the individual, in reality it moves very slowly and few things ever change. I was amazed when I started to study the Soviets to find that what applied in 1950 was exactly the same in 1977.
Only SOME of the cast and a few toys had changed, nothing else.
The other thing that I learned was, there is now, has always been in the past and most likely will always be in the future, Hitler types. If you don't take it to them, they WILL bring it to you.
As to Ron Paul's NV record, I think 10% is too high for anyone. Like I said though, I would have to find out why on each case. As to them spiking when he started running, well, I am of the opinion that once a seated congressmen or senator starts a run they should give up their seat. Why should my tax dollars continue to pay their wages for them to run? Same with their re elections and the presidents bids, once it starts you don't get paid. When I pay a person to do a job I expect 100% out of them. They are grossly overpaid and under performers, just about every single one of them.
This just needs a little of the lib/left PC magic dust. "The best defense is a good initiative". There. Fixed. Initiative is positive. Initiative is good. Can't argue with initiative. Can't denigrate someone with initiative. Works along the same lines of redefining criminal aliens as "undocumented workers" or discrimination as "affirmative action". The only difference being those are always bad things whereas a good offense isn't a bad thing and doesn't need any fixing to begin with.
Last edited:
Speaking of affirmative action and like programs: Don't you find it amazing that liberals/progressives are always trying to "right the wrongs" of the past with programs that promote racism by law? By inventing "special needs" groups, by assuming that no one of a minority group is able to "get ahead" without their special brand of benevolence. All of these kinds of programs are demeaning to the individual and divide the nation.
I don't know if this website has already been linked, but it provides a distilled version of Ron Paul's position on foreign policy issues. I do agree with a lot of what he says, but I'm not comfortable with what appear to be his isolationist tendencies. The skeptic in me says that all this rhetoric is basically campaign statements, so we don't know how he would react if he's dealing with an uncooperative Democrat controlled congress in situations that could clearly develop into crises in the near future; the current situation in Iran comes to mind as an example. Would he sit back and let them develop nuclear weapons as the Obama administration is doing now? Another position of his is his stated promise to cut off aid to both Israel and the Arabs. I think this is an extremely bad idea, because that leaves the Israelis with no major ally while the Arabs continue to roll in oil money that would finance Israel's enemies. Here again, we only have his campaign position statements to go by, and no way of telling what he would do in a real world situation.
Ron Paul on Foreign Policy
Ron Paul on Foreign Policy
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
LOL .... if you believe that, then you clearly don't know me .....
The relevant question would be "The initiative to do what, exactly ?"
Heheheh ..... that's pretty funny ....... criminal aliens .......
"Klaatu barada nikto ?" ... and where's Gort anyways ?
....... I got no problem with calling an illegal alien criminal - because to some extent they are - they have violated the laws of the land that they have entered into ....... BUT .... here's the thing:
I apparently don't share rabid compulsion that you got on it - and I am capable of differentiating and recognizing that the fact of being an illegal alien .... having committed the utterly horrible crime of illegally traveling somewhere ........ isn't quite the same thing as being a Ted Bundy (who confessed to murdering 30, although the number may be as high as 100) ....
..... and that violation of the entry laws into this country is essentially a non-violent crime on it's face .....
..... and that no matter how many times you refer to illegal aliens, undocumented workers, or whatever you would prefer to call them as criminals, that will always be the case .....
It is certainly true that sometimes, some people, who are indeed truly pathological criminals, do commit the crime of illegally entering this country - no doubt about it. Sometimes there is violence involved (although not always by those attempting such illegal entry)
And that our enemies might seek to exploit such weakness (which, in terms, of importance is the real thing to be worried about ..... as opposed to whether Pedro is cutting your neighbor's lawn)
On another thread I threw up a link regarding Open Immigration, with no comment - I certainly didn't advocate it as a position - I just threw up the link to provide an additional viewpoint on the matter, ostensibly to provoke a reasoned discussion and debate on the matter ....
What I can found extremely funny, was the knee-jerk REACTION (predictably on the part of some), and the inability to even discuss the idea on it's merits ..... in a rational way ....
(There is a reason why such discussion might be in your, or your children's, or their children's best interests ....... ask me if you really want to know)
Heheheh ..... now that there is kinda funny ...... I'm about as anti-affirmative action as you could get ..... but other hand I don't feel that discrimination is always necessarily a bad thing ....
To lay it out for ya, here's kinda how it goes: I'm not a fan of the state compelling an individual who owns property to rent that property to anyone that they would prefer not to ..... it ain't the state's property, it's the individuals ...
Nor would I be a fan of the state compelling a church to hire someone who obviously, by their conduct or their expressed moral views, are in opposition to what the church advocates or believes to moral or ethical ......
You wanna know what I find truly criminal ?
Some frickin' retard, moron dumb*** cowboys, who being engaged in an illegal war ("we wuz jus' followin' orders"), gunned down unarmed civilians - including two Reuters reporters and two children - who posed absolutely no threat to them whatsoever, from an Apache helicopter gunship ..... and then an organ of the state seeking to cover it up and deny that it ever occurred (can we all say Mai Lai ?) ..... and the spineless bozo chickenhawks over here stateside that would seek to justify and condone such actions.
In terms of the order of magnitude, there is no comparison ......
I was gonna post this link awhile back in a thread all it's own, with extended commentary but .... well, my time is not unlimited ....
Collateral Murder, The Video
and to fully understand the problem (as this is not the only incident by far), one would have to read the following Terms of Engagement, and observe how out of control things are (as evidenced by the continual, repeated efforts to reign things in)
Terms of Engagement
By the way, the video itself (from the gunsight of an Apache helicopter), and the Terms of Engagement are both still classified ..... so if you are really, really squeamish about such things, and believe that you ought to be good little boys and girls like the state tells you to, and that the path to a just and open civil society, freedom, or anything other than a policestate will be obtained by not looking and in a remaining in a position to take no responsibility whatsoever, as a consequence of remaining unaware, well then, ....... don't look.
BTW, this kind of criminal activity is what your higher taxes will be paying for ..... and it is not an isolated incident ....
Yeah ...... just take the time watch the full, unedited version of the video of above (it's 39+ minutes long) with particular attention to what is being said ..... and then come back here and lecture me about "good offenses" .....
Criminal ? ...... you have absolutely no frickin' idea what criminal really is .....
Last edited:
Again with the telling me what I know or don't know. Let's see how long I can stand to follow up. AFAIK, nobody said the crime of spitting on the sidewalk was equally bad to multiple murders but criminal is criminal regardless of severity. That was my point. It's a crime to illegally enter, period. By their choice they are criminals, period.
Initiative can be good or bad depending on the individual. It can be legal or illegal depending on the idividual. It may or may not be criminal. Illegal entry is always criminal. There can be no other honest appraisal. Discrimination against individuals is a negative thing as well.
Perhaps open immigration got no discussion on it's own merits because it has no merit.
Initiative can be good or bad depending on the individual. It can be legal or illegal depending on the idividual. It may or may not be criminal. Illegal entry is always criminal. There can be no other honest appraisal. Discrimination against individuals is a negative thing as well.
Perhaps open immigration got no discussion on it's own merits because it has no merit.
Oh yeah, we are always the bad guys. I have some pictures my dad took in China, I will NOT post them in here. I won't lower myself to the level of that other guy. Pictures of what Chicom (yes they were around in WWII) soldiers did to young boys.
In later years, like starting around '48 or '49 one of the Russian backed groups in French Indo China favorite games was raping nuns then dismembering them. Let us not forget tounges being cut out if you talked against the Communists, or chop stick through the ear drums or just cutting off the ears. Another favorite all over SE Asia.
Mass murders in ALL communist held countries to this very day.
And the beat goes on. Let's not be so one sided. Those were not civil wars. They were Soviet and Chicom wars.
The Soviets used to kidnap U.S. soldiers in Thailand on a regular basis. And on and on and on.
In later years, like starting around '48 or '49 one of the Russian backed groups in French Indo China favorite games was raping nuns then dismembering them. Let us not forget tounges being cut out if you talked against the Communists, or chop stick through the ear drums or just cutting off the ears. Another favorite all over SE Asia.
Mass murders in ALL communist held countries to this very day.
And the beat goes on. Let's not be so one sided. Those were not civil wars. They were Soviet and Chicom wars.
The Soviets used to kidnap U.S. soldiers in Thailand on a regular basis. And on and on and on.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
No, we're not always the bad guys - but if you want to really be a good guy - if you really want to lay claim to that title and wear the white hat - it requires that you do a little more than simply drape yourself in the flag and militarism .....
You actually have to stand up, speak out, and condemn wrong-doing when you become aware of it - most particularly when it on our side - rather attempting to divert attention from it, and minimize it.
Otherwise, you can lay no moral claim to "being a good guy" .....
No - the actual situation is that you won't rise to the level of that other guy ..... and come out and immediately condemn wrong-doing when you see it, or become aware of it ......
Instead, you attempt to minimize it - to make less of it - to justify it ...... by engaging in some quaint little pseudo-history lesson, conducted in generalities (rather than specific incidents, not that specificity would lend any real weight to your position) ...... dredging up the crimes of someone else ..... as though that would somehow justify crimes committed by our troops some 50 years or more later ......
What a frickin' joke ....
You apparently subscribe to the view of "My country right or wrong ....."
Unfortunately, you don't appear to have much of handle on the provenance of that statement, where it actually came from, or the entire context and thinking that comprised the sentiments surrounding it ....... it was said by Carl Schurz, a German revolutionary, Union Civil War general, US Senator, Secretary of the Interior, and a true Republican:
"The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
Possibly your time would be better spent studying the accompanying sentiments from which the above springs, rather than aimlessly wandering down the memory lane of things which have absolutely no bearing on the matter on at hand, the issues of the day:
"What is the rule of honor to be observed by a power so strongly and so advantageously situated as this Republic is? Of course I do not expect it meekly to pocket real insults if they should be offered to it. But, surely, it should not, as our boyish jingoes wish it to do, swagger about among the nations of the world, with a chip on its shoulder, shaking its fist in everybody's face.
Of course, it should not tamely submit to real encroachments upon its rights. But, surely, it should not, whenever its own notions of right or interest collide with the notions of others, fall into hysterics and act as if it really feared for its own security and its very independence. As a true gentleman, conscious of his strength and his dignity, it should be slow to take offense.
In its dealings with other nations it should have scrupulous regard, not only for their rights, but also for their self-respect. With all its latent resources for war, it should be the great peace power of the world. It should never forget what a proud privilege and what an inestimable blessing it is not to need and not to have big armies or navies to support.
It should seek to influence mankind, not by heavy artillery, but by good example and wise counsel. It should see its highest glory, not in battles won, but in wars prevented.
It should be so invariably just and fair, so trustworthy, so good tempered, so conciliatory, that other nations would instinctively turn to it as their mutual friend and the natural adjuster of their differences, thus making it the greatest preserver of the world's peace.
This is not a mere idealistic fancy. It is the natural position of this great republic among the nations of the earth. It is its noblest vocation, and it will be a glorious day for the United States when the good sense and the self-respect of the American people see in this their "manifest destiny." It all rests upon peace. Is not this peace with honor?
There has, of late, been much loose speech about "Americanism." Is not this good Americanism? It is surely today the Americanism of those who love their country most. And I fervently hope that it will be and ever remain the Americanism of our children and our children's children."
...... Carl Schurz, in an address entitled "The True Americanism," delivered in New York City at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, January 2, 1896.
Too bad you didn't have the guts, the strength, the moral courage, and the integrity to at least raise your voice to police your own - to take a stand - and simply just come out and condemn what is clearly unethical, immoral, and obviously criminal.
Several weeks ago I was speaking to another EO member about this incident (what is contained in Collateral Murder video) They hadn't seen it, but I explained more or less what had happened.
I hadn't really thought all that much about it at the time - I was so ****ed about it ...... but the individual pointed the culpability of those in command, in terms of allowing such a thing to happen in the first place, and then further, in terms of the Armed Forces in attempting to cover it up.
Then the individual offered their take on the crimes contained in the video - that they were in fact an act of Treason against the United States - because they make all of us a target.
They then commented on what they thought should happen to the two individuals that were involved (the ones in the Apache):
"They should just be taken out back and shot."
After reflecting on it some, I think that, yes, that would pretty much be appropriate ..... simply spitting in their faces would be far too light an approbation ....
..... and you really thought that you were insulted when when made my comments about disqualifying any spook as President ....
Last edited:
No, we're not always the bad guys - but if you want to really be a good guy - if you really want to lay claim to that title and wear the white hat - it requires that you do a little more than drape yourself in the flag and militarism - you actually have to stand up, speak out, and condemn wrong-doing when you become aware of it - most particularly when it on our side - rather attempting to divert attention from it, and minimize it.
Otherwise, you can lay no moral claim to "being a good guy" .....
No - the actual situation is that you won't rise to the level of that other guy ..... and come out and immediately condemn wrong-doing when you see it, or become aware of it ......
Instead you attempt to minimize it - make less of it - justify it ...... by engaging in some quaint little pseudo-history lesson, conducted in generalities (rather than specific incidents), dredging up the crimes of someone else ..... as though that would somehow justify crimes committed by our troops some 50 years or more later ......
What a frickin' joke ....
You apparently subscribe to the view of "My country right or wrong ....."
Unfortunately, you don't appear to have much of handle on the provenance of that statement, where it actually came from, or the entire context and thinking that comprised the sentiments surrounding it ....... it was said by Carl Schurz, a German revolutionary, Union Civil War general, US Senator, Secretary of the Interior, and a true Republican:
"The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
Possibly your time would be better spent studying the accompanying sentiments from which the above springs, rather than aimlessly wandering down the memory lane of things which have absolutely no bearing on the matter on at hand, the issues of the day:
"What is the rule of honor to be observed by a power so strongly and so advantageously situated as this Republic is? Of course I do not expect it meekly to pocket real insults if they should be offered to it. But, surely, it should not, as our boyish jingoes wish it to do, swagger about among the nations of the world, with a chip on its shoulder, shaking its fist in everybody's face.
Of course, it should not tamely submit to real encroachments upon its rights. But, surely, it should not, whenever its own notions of right or interest collide with the notions of others, fall into hysterics and act as if it really feared for its own security and its very independence. As a true gentleman, conscious of his strength and his dignity, it should be slow to take offense.
In its dealings with other nations it should have scrupulous regard, not only for their rights, but also for their self-respect. With all its latent resources for war, it should be the great peace power of the world. It should never forget what a proud privilege and what an inestimable blessing it is not to need and not to have big armies or navies to support.
It should seek to influence mankind, not by heavy artillery, but by good example and wise counsel. It should see its highest glory, not in battles won, but in wars prevented.
It should be so invariably just and fair, so trustworthy, so good tempered, so conciliatory, that other nations would instinctively turn to it as their mutual friend and the natural adjuster of their differences, thus making it the greatest preserver of the world's peace.
This is not a mere idealistic fancy. It is the natural position of this great republic among the nations of the earth. It is its noblest vocation, and it will be a glorious day for the United States when the good sense and the self-respect of the American people see in this their "manifest destiny." It all rests upon peace. Is not this peace with honor?
There has, of late, been much loose speech about "Americanism." Is not this good Americanism? It is surely today the Americanism of those who love their country most. And I fervently hope that it will be and ever remain the Americanism of our children and our children's children." - Carl Schurz, in an address entitled "The True Americanism," delivered in New York City at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, January 2, 1896.
Too bad you didn't have the guts, strength, the moral courage, and the integrity to police your own - to take a stand - and simply just come out and condemn what is clearly unethical, immoral, and obviously criminal.
Several weeks ago I was speaking to another EO member about this incident (what is contained in Collateral Murder video) They hadn't seen it, but I explained more or less what had happened.
I hadn't really thought all that much about it at the time - I was so ****ed about it ...... but the individual pointed the culpability of those in command, in terms of allowing such a thing to happen in the first place, and then further, in terms of the Armed Forces in attempting to cover it up.
Then the individual offered his take on the crimes contained in the video - that they were in fact an act of Treason against the United States - because they make all of us a target.
They then commented on what they thought should happen to the two individual involved:
"They should just be taken out back and shot."
After reflecting on it some, I think that, yes, that would pretty much be appropriate ..... simply spitting in their faces would be far too light an approbation ....
..... and you thought you were insulted when about when made my comments about disqualifying any spook as President ....
How do you know what I did or did not do? Don't you even presume to know what steps I did or did not take. You have NOT ONE CLUE about what I did.
Funny, whenever you speak of bad things you hardly ever mention what the other guys did. Was it ok as long as we just ignored it? Were the mass murders all over the Soviet and Chicom dominated areas ok? Go live in Tibet and rag on China like you do here and see what happens.
I was NOT insulted about disqualifying a "spook" as president. Number one, I support no one who was a "spook" at this time anyway. I AM insulted when you have the audacity to accuse me of crimes that I DID NOT COMMIT!!
In MY country, we ALWAYS believe in innocence before guilt. The "Agencies" are made up of INDIVIDUALS! There is NOT some monolithic LUMP known as the intelligence community. You have no reason to just assume that everyone who was a "spook" is a horrible person. You likely know very few.
As to things that happened 50 years ago, well, they are still happening today. Increasing in Russia again. Murder and oppression is alive and well in China, North Korea and Iran. NONE of that is OUR fault. That is a FACT!!
How would you prevent the horrors that are going on today? Do you ignore them so we can remain "pure"? Just sit around the campfire, sing and hold hands? Just explain, what is YOUR solution? I have always, even as a kid, believed that you either stop the "bad guy" from doing bad or you condone what he does.
"You apparently subscribe to the view of "My country right or wrong ....."
Again, you have NO idea, and it is NEVER a good idea nor a sign of intelligence, to put words into others mouth or assume something as fact when you don't even know that person and have absolutely NO IDEA IN THE WORLD what action that person may or may not have taken. When you assume you are more often than not, wrong and look foolish. Assumption about a person you have never even met is silly.
I try, I do not always succeed, to keep my discussions in here on a non-personal level. Making accusations against me is NOT even trying to do that. That is wrong.
Everything that has happened in that past has bearing on what is going on today. Man is a short lived animal but the problems he faces span centuries without any real change. Many problems we are face with today can be traced back, at least in part, to the mid 1500's.
Crimes that others committed in other places are just as bad or worse than what we have done. No one country is pure. I contend that most are worse despite our faults. Faults that I far more aware of than you may think.
As to what I did in my intelligence career, other than a few "snippets" I post in here, you have NO CLUE. How do you just then assume that I am a criminal? Just because you don't like what I did? Or is it that your fear what you don't fully understand?
You post lots of sources, but they are never complete. You do NOT have the ability to get all sides of every story. Neither do I. I did not even when I was in the business and now I have no access. You only see what others, both from your point of view and mine, want you to see.
I am NOT a criminal, under U.S. law, never have been and will only become one if forced by a leftist like Obama. Do not accuse me of being one. I do take that personal and it is against the very spirit of everything that I believe our Constitution stands for. A Constitution who's trust I have NEVER breached.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I only know that when I raised the issue of human rights violations and criminal wrong-doing on the part of our military in Iraq, your response to that appeared to be as follows:
My understanding with respect to the last portion of your statement above was to refer to me ..... if that is correct, then I stand by my following statement:layoutshooter said:
You are failing to condemn criminality when directly confronted with it - and if that weren't bad enough, you attempt to somehow justify and minimize it, seeking to divert attention from the matter by raising issues that have absolutely no real bearing whatsoever on the immediate issue which I raised.
That in my estimation is, as I stated previously, a morally-bankrupt position.
In my estimation, such would be the actions of someone who would inclined to suppress the truth (likely under the utterly misguided logic of "it will hurt the troops" or "it will damage our country") - which prevents open public debate by the very people who have the ultimate responsibility for it - the citizens of this country ..... and which enables criminals to operate with impunity, having no fear that their acts will ever be exposed to the light of day .... or that they will be held accountable ...
Perhaps because, unlike you, I choose not to live in the somewhat distant past, and I fully understand that in order to be able to claim any high moral ground the first thing that, one must address is, by necessity, the matter of one's own conduct ..... and then next, the conduct of those with one is allied or is a part of, such as the other members of a group to which one belongs - whether that group be the entire country, the armed services, your local state or country government .... or just the frickin' Rotary club where one happens to be a member ......
Periodically proclaiming how "good' we are and how "bad" "they" are doesn't give one the high moral ground .... you actually have to earn it .... and to do that you have to be willing to take some responsibility for your own side, and be willing to confront any evil there, and do what is necessary to clean it up and expunge it.
Failing having the ability to be able to clean it up and expunge the evil personally, one, as a responsible citizen, must demand it, of our elected leaders ......
Those that are unwilling or would fail to do so, are, actually, part of the problem.
Further, there is the matter of taking responsibility to ensure that one's fellow citizens are also fully informed, so that they too, are placed in a position where they can fulfill their duties as citizens and exercise responsibility ....
Of course not - but which is the greater sin:
To fail to speak out against regimes which are inherently criminal - or to fail speak out and condemn the criminal elements in a regime to which one belongs, and which is not inherently criminal ?
To me, it seems fairly self-evident ...
This doesn't even really merit a response - because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the specific incident I raised - and I will not let you divert the discussion ....
It is an ineffective tactic that you have repeatedly used, and is frankly, somewhat boring ..... my advice: learn some new tricks ....
Fact is, I don't live in Tibet - I live here - and therefore my first and primary responsibility is here, not there .... (a premise that, lately, seems to have escaped a great many folks, yourself included)
But again, this is yet just another lame attempt to divert attention from the issue raised ....
Last edited:
No I was not talking about you when I said I would not post certain pics, in contradiction of the rules of this forum, I was talking about a person that no longer is allowed to post because of the pics he posted. I don't wish to reap the same harvest.
I won't argue with you any longer, it is a total was of your and my time. You have your opinions, I have mine. They are based on two entirely different lives and experience sets. Both are valid in their own right. Neither is totally wrong and neither is totally right.
Please refrain from even implying that I was involved in criminal acts, I was not. Don't not assume anything, you are wrong when saying that I have never spoken up about wrong doings, you have absolutely no idea in the world of which you speak.
Other than that, get the truck fixed?
I won't argue with you any longer, it is a total was of your and my time. You have your opinions, I have mine. They are based on two entirely different lives and experience sets. Both are valid in their own right. Neither is totally wrong and neither is totally right.
Please refrain from even implying that I was involved in criminal acts, I was not. Don't not assume anything, you are wrong when saying that I have never spoken up about wrong doings, you have absolutely no idea in the world of which you speak.
Other than that, get the truck fixed?