Can Ron Paul get Elected?

[roo_ster]

If America were to stop funding global police actions, what reason would they have to attack us?

Why would anyone attack the US? 

Why climb Mt Everest? Why steal an old lady's purse?  Why rape a high school freshman?  Why embezzle money?  Why sleep with the wife of your friend?  Why kill a random stranger?  Why lynch a black man?

You don't have to do anything for some folks to want to hurt you or take your stuff.  Being alive and having something, anything, others want, fear, or despise has been reason enough throughout history.

The veneer of civilization is thin, but some can not see through it to the human nature that lies beneath.

I would suggest you spend some time with folks less educated and well-mannered than yourself.

[Perd Hapley]

I would suggest you spend some time with folks less educated and well-mannered than yourself.

That's why he (or she) is talking to us.   

[roo_ster]

You are confusing the classical definition of a conservative with the modern definition. 

Yep, there sure is some confusion.  Most of that post was a fine example of such.

Almost as good as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3U49S5NltM
(Hit tip to mbs357)

[brer]

Fistfull

http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Conservative-Madison-American-Politics/dp/0691131171/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-1140055-7179109?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191410039&sr=8-1

Good book by the way.  Nowadays he is considered a libertarian by wiki while in the same wiki article is credited with bringing back the conservative movement of the sixties. I wish wiki could figure out if he was libertarion or  a conservative in the same article. But then, information from wiki is worth what you pay for it.

BTW Goldwater is the one who pretty much indoctrinated Reagan with many of his views.

The reason I bring up Goldwater is that he was the epitome of a conservative.  Nowadays he is considered as either a libertarian or a constitutionalist just as Ron Paul is by many. 

The definition of what a conservative is has changed a lot in the past forty five years.  The guy in office now and the majority of the folks backing him  are not conservatives.

[Len Budney]

Why would anyone attack the US? 

Why climb Mt Everest? Why steal an old lady's purse?  Why rape a high school freshman?  Why embezzle money?  Why sleep with the wife of your friend?  Why kill a random stranger?  Why lynch a black man?

All of those things have one thing in common, which differs greatly from "attacking the US": they aren't guaranteed suicide. For your analogy to work, you should be asking things like, "Why dive in front of a freight train? Why pour gasoline on yourself and strike a match? Why coat your naked body in bacon grease and sneak into a polar-bear cage?"

And yes, people do do those things. But it's a lot less common than your examples above. And more importantly, the folks connected with suicidal maniacs are mighty reluctant to go down with them. Even the folks in the suicide-bombing business aren't suicidal: they find and groom unstable persons to commit suicide, but they don't do so themselves. If Ahmedinejad were a suicidal maniac, determined to go out in a blaze of glory, his countrymen are not. They realize that the "blaze of glory" is a US-launched nuke that will take them all down together.


--Len.

[Mabs2]

Anyone seen this?
http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_raises_5_million_in_3rd_quarter_up_114

And yes, Mars IS amazing.

[Perd Hapley]

brer,

My point in regards to the religious right, if you have any desire to hear me, is that they are much closer to your definition of a conservative than many people give them credit for, and that they keep the party much closer to those conservative/libertarian goals than it would otherwise be.  To ditch them, or their more controversial planks, would alienate many non-religious people and make the Republican Party safe for big-government moderates like Bush. 

Religious conservatives were among those pressuring Bush to appoint more conservative/libertarian justices to SCOTUS.    And I think most conservatives and libertarians agree that he has at least made some major improvements to the Court.  This has been a major goal of the RR for some time, seen in many of the mailings I've received, and heard in the RR talk shows to which I listen.  I've even heard about in sermons, I think.  The RR is also very vocal on education reforms, and in opposing McCain-Feingold, the Fairness Doctrine, and hate crime laws. These are areas where they are very close to conservatives and/or libertarians.  The same would be true of educational vouchers, faith-based initiatives, trade with China (where Christians are persecuted), and other issues which divide the Religious Right, just as they divide Republicans in general.

In areas other than social or religious issues, the religious right also tend, in my judgment, to be just as "true conservative" as non-religious conservatives.  Religious conservatives are just as likely to favor lower taxes, liberalized gun laws, border enforcement, etc. and to oppose the Kyoto treaty, the U.N., the welfare state, etc.

The point, again, is that the religious right are not some fringe group of fanatics.  Most of them are mainstream conservatives with the standard conservative helping of libertarianism.

The definition of what a conservative is has changed a lot in the past forty five years.  The guy in office now and the majority of the folks backing him  are not conservatives.

The definition has also changed over the centuries and across national boundaries.  Yes, I agree that Bush is not very conservative.  I thought that was common knowledge by now.  Yes, Conscience of a Conservative is a good book.  I read it a while back.  But no, Barry Goldwater is not the epitome of a conservative or a libertarian.  He was simply one kind of conservative, or one kind of libertarian, and not the best kind, either.  As we have seen, you don't have the bona fides to tell me about conservatism. 

[roo_ster]

Why would anyone attack the US? 

Why climb Mt Everest? Why steal an old lady's purse?  Why rape a high school freshman?  Why embezzle money?  Why sleep with the wife of your friend?  Why kill a random stranger?  Why lynch a black man?

All of those things have one thing in common, which differs greatly from "attacking the US": they aren't guaranteed suicide.

Since when is attacking the US a suicidal act?  Iran has been at war with the USA since 1979 and we don't do much about them.

Al Qeda made several attacks on the US before 9/11.  We didn't do much about them. 

Even if it was suicide, you'd still find folks to do it.

Anyway, that is beside the point.  Human nature is what it is: corrupt and grasping.  Only constant socialization will ensure that most folks will play well with others as adults.  Even then, some will revert back to their corrupt nature and kill, steal, and generally abuse those who did them no harm.  No provocation is necessary.

[Len Budney]

Since when is attacking the US a suicidal act?  Iran has been at war with the USA since 1979 and we don't do much about them.

That's a bait-and-switch: there's a world of difference between "been at war with" and "attacked." Most importantly, "been at war with" is basically a bit of rhetoric: over that entire 28-year period Iran has barely conducted any actions against the US, direct or indirect. The only notable exception was the "hostage crisis." Iran has never attacked the US.

From that you're making the leap to something like setting off a nuke in the US? They're well aware Iran would be sterilized of everything bigger than a sand flea if they nuked the US. And no other sort of attack would mean a thing: Iran has no offensive capability at all. They lack any naval or air forces with which to project any force into the Western hemisphere.

Al Qeda made several attacks on the US before 9/11.  We didn't do much about them.

Small potatoes--a failed attempt to sabotage a building on a coward's watch. Consider the US response to even a marginally successful attack: 9/11, while dramatic, involved the same loss of life as one month's traffic fatalities in the US. We have twelve 9/11s every year on our highways, and we don't bat an eye. But we responded by killing tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands depending who's counting. (Most of them had nothing to do with 9/11, but that's another matter.)

Anyway, that is beside the point.  Human nature is what it is: corrupt and grasping.  Only constant socialization will ensure that most folks will play well with others as adults.  Even then, some will revert back to their corrupt nature and kill, steal, and generally abuse those who did them no harm.  No provocation is necessary.

To convert that observation into a practical scenario requires assuming an astonishing number of people be astonishingly stupid, plus suicidal.

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

Small potatoes--a failed attempt to sabotage a building on a coward's watch. Consider the US response to even a marginally successful attack: 9/11, while dramatic, involved the same loss of life as one month's traffic fatalities in the US. We have twelve 9/11s every year on our highways, and we don't bat an eye. But we responded by killing tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands depending who's counting. (Most of them had nothing to do with 9/11, but that's another matter.)

A)  There were many attacks besides that on the WTC.

B)  Do you really not understand the difference between terrorist attacks and traffic fatalities?  If not, you must be a Ron Paul supporter.

C)  Oh goodness gracious.  You think we're not allowed to kill anyone who wasn't involved in 9/11.  I wish I knew how to help you people.    

[Len Budney]

B)  Do you really not understand the difference between terrorist attacks and traffic fatalities?  If not, you must be a Ron Paul supporter.

3,000 dead is 3,000 dead. Can you explain why twelve such death-tolls merits a yawn, while one such merits a trillion-dollar invasion and mass slaughter of people who had nothing to do with it?

C)  Oh goodness gracious.  You think we're not allowed to kill anyone who wasn't involved in 9/11.  I wish I knew how to help you people.    

Help us get used to the idea of slaughtering innocents? No thanks. Is there a way we can help you?

--Len.

[roo_ster]

Since when is attacking the US a suicidal act?  Iran has been at war with the USA since 1979 and we don't do much about them.

That's a bait-and-switch: there's a world of difference between "been at war with" and "attacked." Most importantly, "been at war with" is basically a bit of rhetoric: over that entire 28-year period Iran has barely conducted any actions against the US, direct or indirect. The only notable exception was the "hostage crisis." Iran has never attacked the US.

Have you ever heard of Hezbollah?  Yeah, the Iranian-supplied & supported terrorist organization?  Some Marine widows might take issue with your erroneous statement.

From that you're making the leap to something like setting off a nuke in the US? They're well aware Iran would be sterilized of everything bigger than a sand flea if they nuked the US. And no other sort of attack would mean a thing: Iran has no offensive capability at all. They lack any naval or air forces with which to project any force into the Western hemisphere.

I listen and take seriously when folks threaten me or others with bodily injury.  The Iranian president has stated in speeches that he intends to wipe Israel (Little Satan) off the map.  It doesn't take too much imagination to figure out what he'd like to do to the Great Satan.

I doubt they would use a manned vehicle to deliver a nuke.  A ballistic missile or, better yet, smuggle it into the 'States via porous borders.

Al Qeda made several attacks on the US before 9/11.  We didn't do much about them.

Small potatoes--a failed attempt to sabotage a building on a coward's watch. Consider the US response to even a marginally successful attack: 9/11, while dramatic, involved the same loss of life as one month's traffic fatalities in the US. We have twelve 9/11s every year on our highways, and we don't bat an eye. But we responded by killing tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands depending who's counting. (Most of them had nothing to do with 9/11, but that's another matter.)

Al Qeda is responsible for at least:
1993 WTC bombing
African embassy bombings
USS Cole bombing

Our politicians count on us not remembering their promises and perfidies.  Our enemies count on us not remembering their attacks against us.

Anyway, that is beside the point.  Human nature is what it is: corrupt and grasping.  Only constant socialization will ensure that most folks will play well with others as adults.  Even then, some will revert back to their corrupt nature and kill, steal, and generally abuse those who did them no harm.  No provocation is necessary.

To convert that observation into a practical scenario requires assuming an astonishing number of people be astonishingly stupid, plus suicidal.

Len, wake up and smell reality.

Are you in the same population I am?  "Cause the one I am in has 1/2 of that population mustering less than median intelligence.  A goodly proportion of those 150+ millions (in the USA alone) would qualify as, "sand-poundingly stupid."  I don't know if that number would be "astonishing.  It sure is real.

Do we need to be convinced that a lot of folks are willing to condemn themselves to certain death to advance their cause?  Great masses of them shriek their willingness to do so in front of witnesses with recording devices.  A significant number follow through on their threats.

From your posts, it seems you have some familiarity with the Bible.  I would suggest taking to heart its findings on human nature.  Heck, the nature of human nature was known by teh ancient pagans:
"HUman nature is bad.  Good is a human product...A warped piece of wood must be steamed and forced before it is made straight; a metal blade must be put to the whetstone before it becomes sharp.  Since the nature of people is bad, to become corrected they must be taught by teachers and to be orderly they must acquire ritual and moral principles."
----Sun Tzu

[roo_ster]

3,000 dead is 3,000 dead. Can you explain why twelve such death-tolls merits a yawn, while one such merits a trillion-dollar invasion and mass slaughter of people who had nothing to do with it?

Not too swift on the concepts of good & evil, maybe? 

Here is one tidbit: The murder of 3000 has infinitely more moral weight than 3000 who die by accident.

So, you think our troops are engaging in mass slaughter of innocents?  Care to back that up?

I think your moral compass is being effected by Dr. Paul's magnetic personality.  Might want to give it a whack or five to get it pointing magnetic/moral north.

[Perd Hapley]

B)  Do you really not understand the difference between terrorist attacks and traffic fatalities?  If not, you must be a Ron Paul supporter.

3,000 dead is 3,000 dead. Can you explain why twelve such death-tolls merits a yawn, while one such merits a trillion-dollar invasion and mass slaughter of people who had nothing to do with it? 

Uh, one was an act of war?  But the yawn business is a lie.  People who are at fault in traffic accidents are held liable.  Duh. 

C)  Oh goodness gracious.  You think we're not allowed to kill anyone who wasn't involved in 9/11.  I wish I knew how to help you people.    

Help us get used to the idea of slaughtering innocents? No thanks. Is there a way we can help you?

--Len.

Are you saying that anyone who didn't plan, fund or carry out 9-11 is innocent of any terrorist activities?  Apparently so. 

[Len Budney]

3,000 dead is 3,000 dead. Can you explain why twelve such death-tolls merits a yawn, while one such merits a trillion-dollar invasion and mass slaughter of people who had nothing to do with it?

Uh, one was an act of war?

Absolutely true. I merely point out that the death toll was quite small; while tragic, it's hardly an existential threat to America. And it hardly justifies the level of fear that the administration has milked it for. Responses out of all proportion to the threat are counterproductive, because they stand in the way of dealing with the more significant threats. In this case, many of the responses are far more dangerous to the average American than the threat they supposedly address.

C)  Oh goodness gracious.  You think we're not allowed to kill anyone who wasn't involved in 9/11.  I wish I knew how to help you people.    

Help us get used to the idea of slaughtering innocents? No thanks. Is there a way we can help you?

Are you saying that anyone who didn't plan, fund or carry out 9-11 is innocent of any terrorist activities?  Apparently so. 

Obviously not. But you clearly are saying that between 30,000 (Bush's last count) and 1,000,000 (the Lancet's last count) Iraqis are guilty of terrorist activities. That's absolutely nuts.

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

Len, you're changing your standard.  First, you were offended that most of the war on terror casualties had nothing to do with 9-11.  That's what I responded to - the implication that it was unjust to make war on anyone who had not been involved in one particular attack.  Now, you're shifting from "they didn't do 9-11" to "they didn't do anything at all."  It's fine to decry inordinate civilian casualties, just don't re-interpret my words in a way that I obviously did not intend them. 


With regards to the 9-11 death count, you are judging a terrorist attack by the standards of judging a conventional military attack.  This is a mistake, stemming from a lack of understanding. 

[Len Budney]

Len, you're changing your standard.  First, you were offended that most of the war on terror casualties had nothing to do with 9-11.

That's true. "Or any other terrorist activity" is also true. But the administration attempted to link its invasion of Iraq with 9/11, so it's valid to point out that no such link exists, which I did.

That's what I responded to - the implication that it was unjust to make war on anyone who had not been involved in one particular attack.

I never really made that implication, though.

Now, you're shifting from "they didn't do 9-11" to "they didn't do anything at all." 

I'm clarifying that "slaughtering innocents" really means "slaughtering innocents." You interpreted it to mean, "killing terrorists who weren't involved in X attack but were involved in others." In my earlier post, "innocent" means "innocent."

With regards to the 9-11 death count, you are judging a terrorist attack by the standards of judging a conventional military attack.  This is a mistake, stemming from a lack of understanding. 

Please explain where the mistake lies. It seems to me that Bin Ladin wanted terror, and you're obliging him: you're terrified. Terrified enough to respond out of all proportion to the actual effect of the attack. Terrified enough to kiss habeas corpus goodbye and call me a kook for complaining about it. Terrified enough to lash out randomly, slaughtering innocents and swelling the ranks of the terrorists, rather than acting rationally to reduce the threat. In other words, Bin Ladin won, and you're the one handing him the victory.

My initial reaction, rather than bombing the crap out of innocents and suspending habeas corpus, would have been to repeal all gun control (which is unconstitutional anyway) by executive order, deregulate and privatize airport security (in particular, granting airlines full discretion concerning armed guards and/or flight crews), and redeploy US troops along the US border where they belong. Measures that actually increase security, in other words. Suspending habeas corpus and invading Iraq would not appear at the top of my list, nor at the bottom, nor anywhere else.

--Len

[brer]

Fistful, Sorry to disappoint you, I do have my bonafides as a conservative, but I have some serious doubts about yours.

Quote from Fistful

To ditch them, or their more controversial planks, would alienate many non-religious people and make the Republican Party safe for big-government moderates like Bush.

Sorry to bring this to your awareness, but the religious right were the ones responsible for getting Bush elected in the first place.  I remember the campaign very well back, in 2, towards the end, they were both trying to outpious each other. 

They still have not realized their mistake considering most of the front running GOP candidates for presidency are also big government moderates.

Quote from Fistful

In areas other than social or religious issues, the religious right also tend, in my judgment, to be just as "true conservative" as non-religious conservatives.  Religious conservatives are just as likely to favor lower taxes, liberalized gun laws, border enforcement, etc. and to oppose the Kyoto treaty, the U.N., the welfare state, etc.

Considering the many conservative democrats that vote for these things that are not part of the religious right that also vote that way, it really does not prove much. 

I guess my experience with members of the religious right is a bit different than yours, or I just asked different questions.

The examples you provided are the instances where the interests of the RR overlap.  But there are many more issues where their interests diverge.

For the most part, the RR want the government out of their lives, as do the conservatives.  But when it comes to passing laws to enforce religiously based moral stances or policy that effectively brings the government back into their lives, what does the RR do more often than not?

Again if RP does not get the not, I will vote democrat just to punish the republicans for not keeping him in check.  Might be if the republicans sit out of the presidency for a while they may start rethinking the platform a bit.

[Perd Hapley]

It seems to me that Bin Ladin wanted terror, and you're obliging him: you're terrified. Terrified enough to respond out of all proportion to the actual effect of the attack. Terrified enough to kiss habeas corpus goodbye and call me a kook for complaining about it. Terrified enough to lash out randomly, slaughtering innocents and swelling the ranks of the terrorists, rather than acting rationally to reduce the threat. In other words, Bin Ladin won, and you're the one handing him the victory.

How do you presume to know if I am terrified?  That's just silly.  You can think I am, if it makes you feel better.  I could just as easily claim that you are so terrified that you want to bring all our troops home, and cower behind our national borders.  But such a claim would be pretty silly, wouldn't it?

When did I call you a kook, with regards to habeas corpus?  Speaking of lashing out randomly.     Just so you know, while I'm not buying into every allegation of infringement of rights by Bush, I have repeatedly said, elsewhere, that I'm with-holding judgment until I can study these issues more fully.  That will take many years.  If you feel that you have a good enough grasp of constitutional law to make such judgments, by all means go ahead. 

My initial reaction, rather than bombing the crap out of innocents and suspending habeas corpus, would have been to repeal all gun control (which is unconstitutional anyway) by executive order, deregulate and privatize airport security (in particular, granting airlines full discretion concerning armed guards and/or flight crews), and redeploy US troops along the US border where they belong. 

Like Ron Paul, I am lovin' your domestic policy.  It's just your foreign policy that is completely backward. 

[Len Budney]

It seems to me that Bin Ladin wanted terror, and you're obliging him: you're terrified. Terrified enough to respond out of all proportion to the actual effect of the attack. Terrified enough to kiss habeas corpus goodbye and call me a kook for complaining about it. Terrified enough to lash out randomly, slaughtering innocents and swelling the ranks of the terrorists, rather than acting rationally to reduce the threat. In other words, Bin Ladin won, and you're the one handing him the victory.

How do you presume to know if I am terrified?  That's just silly.  You can think I am, if it makes you feel better.

So you're not terrified, but unafraid, cold and rational, you've decided that slaughtering innocents is the way to go? That's much worse.

When did I call you a kook, with regards to habeas corpus?  Speaking of lashing out randomly.     Just so you know, while I'm not buying into every allegation of infringement of rights by Bush, I have repeatedly said, elsewhere, that I'm with-holding judgment until I can study these issues more fully.

You're entitled. But I don't think it takes deep analysis to decide that suspending a vital civil right is a bad thing.

My initial reaction, rather than bombing the crap out of innocents and suspending habeas corpus, would have been to repeal all gun control (which is unconstitutional anyway) by executive order, deregulate and privatize airport security (in particular, granting airlines full discretion concerning armed guards and/or flight crews), and redeploy US troops along the US border where they belong.

Like Ron Paul, I am lovin' your domestic policy.  It's just your foreign policy that is completely backward. 

Well, having armed Americans to the teeth, fortified the borders, and vastly improved airport security, most of the reason for foreign adventurism is obviated.

Note that I insist invading Iraq was wrong, but I'm less definitive about Afghanistan. Initially the US demanded extradition of Bin Ladin, which was the right thing to do. The Afghan government demanded evidence of Bin Ladin's guilt, which was in keeping with international law. The US said "screw that" and invaded; I think that was definitely premature. If the US had handled the matter completely correctly, it might still have led to a conflict with Afghanistan, and I would not shrink from that. (Neither, BTW, would Ron Paul.)

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

So you're not terrified, but unafraid, cold and rational, you've decided that slaughtering innocents is the way to go? That's much worse.

I'm sorry.  Where did I decide to slaughter innocents?  Please explain. 

You're entitled. But I don't think it takes deep analysis to decide that suspending a vital civil right is a bad thing.

  Well, the Constitution allows for it, so I do give some weight to that.  The larger question is whether that is actually happening.  Your temptation now will be to assure me that it is.  But you can understand that I'm wary of taking lectures in law from Random Internet People.  So don't.  Anyway, are you going to apologize for putting words in my mouth? 

[Len Budney]

So you're not terrified, but unafraid, cold and rational, you've decided that slaughtering innocents is the way to go? That's much worse.

I'm sorry.  Where did I decide to slaughter innocents?  Please explain. 

My mistake. I thought you were a defender of the Iraqi invasion. I must have been thinking of someone else.

You're entitled. But I don't think it takes deep analysis to decide that suspending a vital civil right is a bad thing.

Well, the Constitution allows for it, so I do give some weight to that.

Granted. I suggest a cold hard look at what "temporarily in time of war" means. And remember that the administration itself admits that there's nothing "temporary" about the war on terror. The Constitution doesn't say "eternally, while waging the forever war."

The larger question is whether that is actually happening.  Your temptation now will be to assure me that it is.

Please note that I made no claims whether people have been detained without habeas corpus. Some have, but lets pretend that none have. If another civil right were suspended--the freedom of speech, say--but as of the time of our conversation nobody had yet been imprisoned for exercising speech, would you conclude that suspending the 1st Amendment were no big deal?

Anyway, are you going to apologize for putting words in my mouth?

First it must be established that I have. I didn't use quotation marks, so it's clear that I was not attempting a verbatim quote. Are you of the opinion that I have misrepresented your position? So far you haven't said so; you've only denied using the specific words I did, which we both already knew.

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm clarifying that "slaughtering innocents" really means "slaughtering innocents." You interpreted it to mean, "killing terrorists who weren't involved in X attack but were involved in others."

Actually, the reverse is true.  I spoke of killing people who were not involved in 9-11, and you interpreted that to mean "slaughtering innocents," rather than "killing terrorists who weren't involved in X attack but were involved in others."  The latter would be the obvious interpretation.  Though I would add the slight modification that, in warfare, one usually kills or captures the enemy on sight, rather than waiting for them to commit a bombing or other act of war.

Len, I've got a few days off, so let's go over this again.  You said:

But we responded [to 9-11] by killing tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands depending who's counting. (Most of them had nothing to do with 9/11, but that's another matter.)

What does this mean?  Why would you say this, except to allege that we have no business killing anyone who was not involved in those specific attacks?  That would be a very strange view of foreign policy, were it not so commonplace among the anti-war folk.  That is why I replied thus:

Oh goodness gracious.  You think we're not allowed to kill anyone who wasn't involved in 9/11.  I wish I knew how to help you people.

To which you responded:

Help us get used to the idea of slaughtering innocents? No thanks. Is there a way we can help you?

You make a huge leap from terrorists who weren't part of 9-11, to innocent people.  And you accuse me of endorsing the latter.  To make sense of this oddity, I asked you to clarify:

Are you saying that anyone who didn't plan, fund or carry out 9-11 is innocent of any terrorist activities?  Apparently so.

 

Your rebuttal:

Obviously not. But you clearly are saying that between 30,000 (Bush's last count) and 1,000,000 (the Lancet's last count) Iraqis are guilty of terrorist activities. That's absolutely nuts.

Now, where did I allege that everyone who has died in our recent military campaigns was a terrorist?  I've never seen anyone make that claim. 

But the administration attempted to link its invasion of Iraq with 9/11

How so?

[Perd Hapley]

I'm sorry.  Where did I decide to slaughter innocents?  Please explain. 

My mistake. I thought you were a defender of the Iraqi invasion. I must have been thinking of someone else. 

Invading Iraq is clearly not a slaughter of the innocents.  Please don't waste my time with any more such childish rhetoric.

The larger question is whether that is actually happening.  Your temptation now will be to assure me that it is. 

Please note that I made no claims whether people have been detained without habeas corpus. Some have, but lets pretend that none have. If another civil right were suspended--the freedom of speech, say--but as of the time of our conversation nobody had yet been imprisoned for exercising speech, would you conclude that suspending the 1st Amendment were no big deal?

I didn't say the suspension of habeas corpus would be "no big deal."  I said I was not convinced it had been suspended.  I've heard it and read it on the internet tubes, but that proves nothing.  Note that I'm not denying that it has been suspended, just saying that I don't know. 

Anyway, are you going to apologize for putting words in my mouth?

First it must be established that I have. I didn't use quotation marks blah, blah, blah. 

My goodness gracious.  You accused me of calling you a kook, over an issue I don't recall even addressing with you.  Just admit you were wrong.   

[Len Budney]

I'm sorry.  Where did I decide to slaughter innocents?  Please explain. 

My mistake. I thought you were a defender of the Iraqi invasion. I must have been thinking of someone else. 

Invading Iraq is clearly not a slaughter of the innocents.  Please don't waste my time with any more such childish rhetoric.

You are claiming that the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dead are all, or even mostly all, terrorists. Talk about childish rhetoric!

Anyway, are you going to apologize for putting words in my mouth?

First it must be established that I have. I didn't use quotation marks blah, blah, blah. 

My goodness gracious.  You accused me of calling you a kook, over an issue I don't recall even addressing with you.  Just admit you were wrong.   

I think you do dispute my assertion that habeas corpus has been suspended, and regard me as a kook for getting so worked up about it. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I don't think I am.

--Len.