Pre 9-11 Thinking

[Phatscotty]

Are we in a deeper sleep now than we were on September 10th, 2001?

People Jumping from World Trade Center

NEVER forget

[Woodruff]

Are we in a deeper sleep now than we were on September 10th, 2001?

People Jumping from World Trade Center

NEVER forget

What we've "forgotten" is how to be a free nation.

[BigBallinStalin]

Are we in a deeper sleep now than we were on September 10th, 2001?

People Jumping from World Trade Center

NEVER forget

What we've "forgotten" is how to be a free nation.

I'll agree to that.

[jay_a2j]

Are we in a deeper sleep now than we were on September 10th, 2001?

People Jumping from World Trade Center

NEVER forget

What we've "forgotten" is how to be a free nation.

I'll agree to that.

Unbelievably, me too.

[tkr4lf]

I think we can all agree to that.

[jay_a2j]

I think we can all agree to that.

Then why is Ron Paul not the GOP candidate? He was the only guy talking about this stuff.

[Frigidus]

I think we can all agree to that.

Then why is Ron Paul not the GOP candidate? He was the only guy talking about this stuff.

Because a lot of the people that claim to be libertarians actually just mean "I want low tax rates". They see Paul's stances on the military, the war on drugs, his desire to end the federal reserve and social security, and all of a sudden they don't like libertarianism quite as much.

[tzor]

Are we in a deeper sleep now than we were on September 10th, 2001?

That's hard to say. Let's understand first that the attacks on September 11th were a long planned coordinated attack. It was the design of the twin towers that made 9/11 the dark day of infamy. (Consider that the attack on the Pentagon while tragic was no where near the epic porportions as was the thousands who died when the towers collapsed and had the attack on the White House been successful, it would have been mostly symbolic; the original White House was burned down in the war of 1812). So the question is how we define "sleep."

If we define sleep as not paying attention to the voices of hate and the reasons for their hate towards us and our way of life in general; we are more asleep now than we were in 2001.

If we define our general attitude towards homeland secutiry, we are more awake and aware than we were in 2001. We are still not properly aware and smart about it, but there is still an improvement.

[fadedpsychosis]

Are we in a deeper sleep now than we were on September 10th, 2001?

That's hard to say. Let's understand first that the attacks on September 11th were a long planned coordinated attack. It was the design of the twin towers that made 9/11 the dark day of infamy. (Consider that the attack on the Pentagon while tragic was no where near the epic porportions as was the thousands who died when the towers collapsed and had the attack on the White House been successful, it would have been mostly symbolic; the original White House was burned down in the war of 1812). So the question is how we define "sleep."

If we define sleep as not paying attention to the voices of hate and the reasons for their hate towards us and our way of life in general; we are more asleep now than we were in 2001.

If we define our general attitude towards homeland secutiry, we are more awake and aware than we were in 2001. We are still not properly aware and smart about it, but there is still an improvement.

yeah... pretty much sums it up for me too

[Woodruff]

Comment stolen from a story regarding the recent attacks that seems appropriate:

A mere century ago, I don't think there was a single Muslim nation that was fully independent of European domination, save maybe the Ottoman Empire, which was collapsing under pressure from the West. There has been no "kiss and make up" period since the colonial era, so it should surprise no one that resentments continue to fester in cultures with long memories. This is hard for Americans to understand, because our worst enemies of the past are our strongest allies today (Britain, Germany, Japan).

Most of these nations, particulary the most radicalized ones, have been under the domination of western-backed dictatorships (or monarchies, which are really the same thing)for most of the lives of their current citizens. Most of these dicators maintained power by focusing the misery of their people on external causes (Israel, America), instead of internal problems.

Solution? A long, hard road of education, economic development, political freedom (even when things don't turn out as we like), to enable the populations of Muslim nations to prosper according to THEIR values, and not by imposing OURS. I don't think there have been many suicide bombers who had the vote, a home and family, and a future worth living for. Radical leaders can easily recruit volunteers from a population with nothing to lose (true even in America among society's losers).

[fadedpsychosis]

Comment stolen from a story regarding the recent attacks that seems appropriate:

A mere century ago, I don't think there was a single Muslim nation that was fully independent of European domination, save maybe the Ottoman Empire, which was collapsing under pressure from the West. There has been no "kiss and make up" period since the colonial era, so it should surprise no one that resentments continue to fester in cultures with long memories. This is hard for Americans to understand, because our worst enemies of the past are our strongest allies today (Britain, Germany, Japan).

Most of these nations, particulary the most radicalized ones, have been under the domination of western-backed dictatorships (or monarchies, which are really the same thing)for most of the lives of their current citizens. Most of these dicators maintained power by focusing the misery of their people on external causes (Israel, America), instead of internal problems.

Solution? A long, hard road of education, economic development, political freedom (even when things don't turn out as we like), to enable the populations of Muslim nations to prosper according to THEIR values, and not by imposing OURS. I don't think there have been many suicide bombers who had the vote, a home and family, and a future worth living for. Radical leaders can easily recruit volunteers from a population with nothing to lose (true even in America among society's losers).

damn... need to send this article to our policy makers and make them READ it.

[john9blue]

Are we in a deeper sleep now than we were on September 10th, 2001?

People Jumping from World Trade Center

NEVER forget

you better hope dave doesn't see this LOL

i posted "falling man" and he got fucking PISSED. enough to made him my mortal enemy.

he has a very strong emotional response to 9/11, probably due to personal loss

[Phatscotty]

Are we in a deeper sleep now than we were on September 10th, 2001?

People Jumping from World Trade Center

NEVER forget

you better hope dave doesn't see this LOL

i posted "falling man" and he got fucking PISSED. enough to made him my mortal enemy.

he has a very strong emotional response to 9/11, probably due to personal loss

Well then, I'm sure he does not wish for people to forget about 9-11 as well.

[john9blue]

you better hope dave doesn't see this LOL

i posted "falling man" and he got fucking PISSED. enough to made him my mortal enemy.

he has a very strong emotional response to 9/11, probably due to personal loss

Well then, I'm sure he does not wish for people to forget about 9-11 as well.

my post said basically the same thing. you are falsely assuming that he is a person who thinks rationally.

[tzor]

Most of these nations, particulary the most radicalized ones, have been under the domination of western-backed dictatorships (or monarchies, which are really the same thing)for most of the lives of their current citizens. Most of these dicators maintained power by focusing the misery of their people on external causes (Israel, America), instead of internal problems.

Yes, but this is also true of a lot of the history of western and eastern Europe and a lot of the Americas. To a certain extent you can see the same problems reflected in those areas as well.

It doesn't help that the western world pushes this notion of "democracy" which is realy putting the cart before the horse. As the Declaration of Independence states government is designed to ensure "rights" to the pepople and derive their power from the people's "consent." One can argue from there that the democratic republic is the best manner to express those rights and the consent of the people, but without the notion that government exists to secure the rights to all the people, democracy merely becomes another form of mob rule; in this case the "mob" being the majority of the moment.

In most of the Muslim world, the ideal government is a theocracy. It doesn't exist to defend inalienable rights but to impose God's law (or what they consider God's law). Thus it is, while not incompatible, extreemely difficult to integrate into their culture. Such things cannot be imposed from the outside; they have to own it and desire it for themselves. Until that happens, the probability of democratically elected despots is as high there today as it was in France during the revolution against the government of France in the very late 18th century.

[Woodruff]

It doesn't help that the western world pushes this notion of "democracy" which is realy putting the cart before the horse. As the Declaration of Independence states government is designed to ensure "rights" to the pepople and derive their power from the people's "consent." One can argue from there that the democratic republic is the best manner to express those rights and the consent of the people, but without the notion that government exists to secure the rights to all the people, democracy merely becomes another form of mob rule; in this case the "mob" being the majority of the moment.

Very good point.

In most of the Muslim world, the ideal government is a theocracy.

I wouldn't QUITE agree with that. I think it's true of those who haven't experienced anything else (those who have lived under that law the majority of their lives). It's "what they know". It's comfortable. It fits them into their box, and they don't have to think too much that way. But I definitely would not say that it is ideal to those Muslims who have had the opportunity to live most of their lives in a westernized culture.

Such things cannot be imposed from the outside; they have to own it and desire it for themselves.

This is absolutely true.

[Phatscotty]

If we still had the color coded terror alert, would it be red right now?

[Frigidus]

If we still had the color coded terror alert, would it be red right now?

I don't think we have too much to worry about on this side of the world.

[Phatscotty]

If we still had the color coded terror alert, would it be red right now?

I don't think we have too much to worry about on this side of the world.

Mind elaborating?

[PLAYER57832]

I think we can all agree to that.

Then why is Ron Paul not the GOP candidate? He was the only guy talking about this stuff.

Because a lot of the people that claim to be libertarians actually just mean "I want low tax rates". They see Paul's stances on the military, the war on drugs, his desire to end the federal reserve and social security, and all of a sudden they don't like libertarianism quite as much.

and they "don't like it" because they realize that many of those things, contrary to the Phatt-view really contribute to real freedom for most Americans.

Its pretty hard to worry about freedom when your kids are not getting educated, you have trouble putting food on the table and you know that your kids are going to wind up paying for all these wonderful tax breaks out of THEIR pockets, never mind that they did not reap the benefits....

and, oh yeah... but hey, the fact that the 1% is the ONLY group that has done well, that the middle class has SLID amongst all these wonderful tax breaks is just irrelevant. The right wing "factoids" claim that the middle class will do better with more tax breaks and we should all just go ahead and believe it.

[thegreekdog]

I think we can all agree to that.

Then why is Ron Paul not the GOP candidate? He was the only guy talking about this stuff.

Because a lot of the people that claim to be libertarians actually just mean "I want low tax rates". They see Paul's stances on the military, the war on drugs, his desire to end the federal reserve and social security, and all of a sudden they don't like libertarianism quite as much.

and they "don't like it" because they realize that many of those things, contrary to the Phatt-view really contribute to real freedom for most Americans.

Its pretty hard to worry about freedom when your kids are not getting educated, you have trouble putting food on the table and you know that your kids are going to wind up paying for all these wonderful tax breaks out of THEIR pockets, never mind that they did not reap the benefits....

and, oh yeah... but hey, the fact that the 1% is the ONLY group that has done well, that the middle class has SLID amongst all these wonderful tax breaks is just irrelevant. The right wing "factoids" claim that the middle class will do better with more tax breaks and we should all just go ahead and believe it.

I don't think you read Frigidus's post correctly. He was referring to conservative Republican primary voters (the ones who voted for Mitt Romney) and how those people don't want a reduced military or an end to the war on drugs and the federal reserve. He's not referring to your average Democrat. I'm not sure you truly (to borrow your word) understand libertarianism. It's not just about tax cuts.

[PLAYER57832]

I think we can all agree to that.

Then why is Ron Paul not the GOP candidate? He was the only guy talking about this stuff.

Because a lot of the people that claim to be libertarians actually just mean "I want low tax rates". They see Paul's stances on the military, the war on drugs, his desire to end the federal reserve and social security, and all of a sudden they don't like libertarianism quite as much.

and they "don't like it" because they realize that many of those things, contrary to the Phatt-view really contribute to real freedom for most Americans.

Its pretty hard to worry about freedom when your kids are not getting educated, you have trouble putting food on the table and you know that your kids are going to wind up paying for all these wonderful tax breaks out of THEIR pockets, never mind that they did not reap the benefits....

and, oh yeah... but hey, the fact that the 1% is the ONLY group that has done well, that the middle class has SLID amongst all these wonderful tax breaks is just irrelevant. The right wing "factoids" claim that the middle class will do better with more tax breaks and we should all just go ahead and believe it.

I don't think you read Frigidus's post correctly. He was referring to conservative Republican primary voters (the ones who voted for Mitt Romney) and how those people don't want a reduced military or an end to the war on drugs and the federal reserve. He's not referring to your average Democrat. I'm not sure you truly (to borrow your word) understand libertarianism. It's not just about tax cuts.

I believe I read it quite well... People don't want to pay taxes, but they want the things those taxes provide.

[Phatscotty]

Tell me Player....what is the Phatt-view?

[tzor]

If we still had the color coded terror alert, would it be red right now?

Due to major changes in the composition of the government at the Federal Level, we are officially on CODE PINK at the moment.

[tzor]

I believe I read it quite well... People don't want to pay taxes, but they want the things those taxes provide.

I don't mind paying taxes. I object to excess Federal Government Spending.

Ironically, back in the late 80's I lived on long Island and worked in Manhattan. The city would charge me a non resident income tax. I mean it was pathetic, even in the late 80's. It was like a couple of bucks out of my paycheck. How dare they do that! I mean if you were going to tax me make it something meaningful.

The Federal Government is excellent at wasting money (there is a reason for this but such logical explantions would be wasted among the progressives here). Yet it doesn't mean that all money spent is useless; some money is actually used for a purpose. If only you could eliminate the waste and keep the effective spending you would ... but you can't so why bother.