NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.wftv.com/politics/10173251/detail.html

It happened in Kansas. Why is Kansas so fucked up?

http://www.wftv.com/politics/10173251/detail.html

It happened in Kansas. Why is Kansas so fucked up?

Fred Phelps

she was breaking the law?

when I volunteered in 2004 at the polling place they asked me not to wear my American flag pin, I actually was asked to take it off and put it in my purse because it might affect voting.......even though the little stickers we hand out have a flag on them :confused: I wonder who they thought I was supporting with my little pin?

That is pretty bad, I could understand it if there was an election on but there wasn't. It also seems that whoever called it in is pretty vindictive as they would have had to know there was a law against it.

she was breaking the law?

when I volunteered in 2004 at the polling place they asked me not to wear my American flag pin, I actually was asked to take it off and put it in my purse because it might affect voting.......even though the little stickers we hand out have a flag on them :confused: I wonder who they thought I was supporting with my little pin?

She parked at a mall and had a political bumper sticker on her car. It's not her fault the polling place is in a mall. Why not put it in a fire station or something? Why put it someplace where ordinary people go to shop on a day to day basis? I'm sure several cars per day with political bumper stickers park at the mall. Why is she singled out?

The police had to be looking for an excuse to write a ticket if they dragged up a law about campaigning near a polling place.

The police had to be looking for an excuse to write a ticket if they dragged up a law about campaigning near a polling place.

The person who called it in pointed it out to them, the police had to follow the law once they knew about it.

She parked at a mall and had a political bumper sticker on her car. It's not her fault the polling place is in a mall. Why not put it in a fire station or something? Why put it someplace where ordinary people go to shop on a day to day basis? I'm sure several cars per day with political bumper stickers park at the mall. Why is she singled out?

if she works at the mall she must know it was a polling place, when I worked at the library there was this big memo sent out near elections talking about the various rules for polling places, maybe they didn't have "the memo" where she worked but she at least had to know that it was a polling place right?

oh, and cops respond to what they are called to respond to, if I call them to my house they respond to my problem whether or not there is something illegal going on across the street that they don't know about.

A little bit strict, but I suppose nessecaryly enforced. If after all you are going to enforce something like that, you need to keep little enfractions in line to avoid the Parisian windows outcome

The person who called it in pointed it out to them, the police had to follow the law once they knew about it.

OK then, the jerk who called it in was looking for an excuse to start trouble. Either way, someone had to do some serious digging and exposed a flawed law.

A little bit strict, but I suppose nessecaryly enforced. If after all you are going to enforce something like that, you need to keep little enfractions in line to avoid the Parisian windows outcome

Not that I actually understand the Parisian windows reference but I have to agree. The law says, "No campaigning within 250 feet of a polling place." I'm sure it details what constitutes "campaigning" and I imagine displaying signs is on the list. As much as I enjoy anti-Republican bumper stickers (my favorite is "Friends don't let friends vote Republican") if we allow this one to slip by, what's to prevent the Repubs from energizing the base and parking all their Lincolns and Caddies and Hummers all around the polling places? This is why we have laws like this.

As for Kansas, read What's the Matter With Kansas? by Thomas Frank.

OK then, the jerk who called it in was looking for an excuse to start trouble. Either way, someone had to do some serious digging and exposed a flawed law.

I don't think it is a flawed law....I mean it makes sense not to have people campaigning outside polling places.

I don't think it is a flawed law....I mean it makes sense not to have people campaigning outside polling places.

Yeah, but doesn't it strike you as weird that the law is seldom used and only brought out on this occasion even though there are probably loads of cars with political bumper stickers that park at the mall on any given day? It's used so seldom that the news story pointed out that the officer seemed confused. If I ran the mall and police started ticketing cars in the parking lot that had political bumper stickers I'd refuse to let the state use it as a polling place. That's got to be bad for business.

At elections here we always have people standing at the entrance to polling stations handing out leaflets trying to get you to vote for them/their candidate. All parties do it.

I don't think it is a flawed law....I mean it makes sense not to have people campaigning outside polling places.

Only when there's voting going on, that is. If there's no voting going on, who gives a damn if there's campaigning going on? If the law states "no campaigning within a polling place on Election Day" then it's perfectly reasonable. If it says, "No campaigning in front of a polling place EVER even when there's no voting going on" then it's a dumb law. Most polling places are used for other things when they're not being used for polling places. To tell people that they can't campaign outside a shopping mall on the 363 days a year that people aren't inside voting is inane.

Also, on Election Day in college, I remember people campaigning outside the building I went into to vote all the time. Political candidates showed up (in goofy outfits, sometimes) to campaign and often caught people on their way OUT of voting (I remember bumping into one candidate when I had just voted...for his opponent) so I don't know how much effect it really had. Maybe Ohio doesn't have any laws about this stuff.

Yeah, but doesn't it strike you as weird that the law is seldom used and only brought out on this occasion even though there are probably loads of cars with political bumper stickers that park at the mall on any given day? It's used so seldom that the news story pointed out that the officer seemed confused. If I ran the mall and police started ticketing cars in the parking lot that had political bumper stickers I'd refuse to let the state use it as a polling place. That's got to be bad for business.

is it strange to me that a police officer responded to a call? not really. I think probably most cities have police officers that come out to see if you report something illegal. I don't think it's some sort of huge government conspiracy or anything.

Only when there's voting going on, that is. If there's no voting going on, who gives a damn if there's campaigning going on? If the law states "no campaigning within a polling place on Election Day" then it's perfectly reasonable. If it says, "No campaigning in front of a polling place EVER even when there's no voting going on" then it's a dumb law. Most polling places are used for other things when they're not being used for polling places. To tell people that they can't campaign outside a shopping mall on the 363 days a year that people aren't inside voting is inane.

Also, on Election Day in college, I remember people campaigning outside the building I went into to vote all the time. Political candidates showed up (in goofy outfits, sometimes) to campaign and often caught people on their way OUT of voting (I remember bumping into one candidate when I had just voted...for his opponent) so I don't know how much effect it really had. Maybe Ohio doesn't have any laws about this stuff.

where does it say there wasn't voting going on? some places have early voting, I assumed there was some voting going on....I didn't see it state that there wasn't.

The law here is that when people are using the polling place to vote you can't campaign, protest, etc. within 250 feet.

where does it say there wasn't voting going on? some places have early voting, I assumed there was some voting going on....I didn't see it state that there wasn't.

The law here is that when people are using the polling place to vote you can't campaign, protest, etc. within 250 feet.

I don't think it stated that there was, either...it's a little unclear, and perhaps there was early voting going on, but that wasn't really made clear from the article. Since Election Day is two weeks away, having voting there seemed a little unlikely, but maybe there was. The way it put it in the article, though, it did seem like the law stated that campaigning within 250 feet of a polling place was illegal even when there was no voting going on. Granted, that's an educated guess, not a statement.

I don't think it stated that there was, either...it's a little unclear, and perhaps there was early voting going on, but that wasn't really made clear from the article. Since Election Day is two weeks away, having voting there seemed a little unlikely, but maybe there was. The way it put it in the article, though, it did seem like the law stated that campaigning within 250 feet of a polling place was illegal even when there was no voting going on. Granted, that's an educated guess, not a statement.
I think neither of us has enough information :p

So the way I look at it is that I break the law every time I go to vote. I have a political bumper sticker on my car, and park right out front. I would assume this would be an issue with many people. Does this mean everyone who has a political bumper sticker should have to park x feet away?

So the way I look at it is that I break the law every time I go to vote. I have a political bumper sticker on my car, and park right out front. I would assume this would be an issue with many people. Does this mean everyone who has a political bumper sticker should have to park x feet away?

there aren't parking spaces open within 250 feet of polling places on voting days here, you have to park far away and walk, everyone does.

I guess things are different here haha.

So the way I look at it is that I break the law every time I go to vote. I have a political bumper sticker on my car, and park right out front. I would assume this would be an issue with many people. Does this mean everyone who has a political bumper sticker should have to park x feet away?

I would be in a lot of trouble ... my polling place is in the middle of fucking nowhere along a county road that does not allow parking and about 5 frigging miles from anywhere else to park

Gawd I hate being on the edge of a township whos "capital" town is only 130 people

there aren't parking spaces open within 250 feet of polling places on voting days here, you have to park far away and walk, everyone does.

I guess things are different here haha.

depending on which election and what time I go, there is anything from only workers there to parking on the American Legion lawn. When I'm actually in town on election day (a very rare thing) I usually go at random times, like 11:43. Fewer people.

Yeah that's pretty stupid.


Honestly? It's a bumper sticker. Get over it. It's not "campaigning", however you want to see it, because it's just a frigging bumper sticker. It's not someone handing out leaflets, it's not someone talking to people in line, it's not even a picket sign with "VOTE DEMOCRAT" on it - it's a fucking bumper sticker. There IS no slippery slope here, people - it's just a bumper sticker.

The police had to be looking for an excuse to write a ticket if they dragged up a law about campaigning near a polling place.

Sounds like it; as parking enforcement is random and tends to happen the most when a city is strapped for cash.

if we allow this one to slip by, what's to prevent the Repubs from energizing the base and parking all their Lincolns and Caddies and Hummers all around the polling places? This is why we have laws like this.
Very good point, there.
Over in NZ, you're not allowed to have party advertising near the polling booth, but strangely enough people are allowed to be inside the booth wearing party regalia.
A few years ago, ACT (a very right-wing party) paid ppl to sit inside the booth all day festooned with ACT party badges and wearing clothes in ACT colours. They weren't allowed to talk to voters, but were allowed to sit there silently watching you as you voted.
It was just bizarre that the law ok'd that and not a sign outside the place.
The place I went to, the ACT guy had a face like a slapped arse. Just sat that grimacing at everyone coming in. He probably lost more votes for them than anything.

Not that I actually understand the Parisian windows reference but I have to agree.

The Parisian window thesis was a thesis developed by an English, somewhat eccentric sociologist (whose name I forget precisiely). But what he did was he said that crime works in the same was as an old abandoned parsian factory. If you smash one of the windows in an old grided window frame, while all the others are intact, then you can be sure that within a week, well over half of those windows will be smashed. In the same way with crime, if low level crimes are allowed to slink by (grafiti, littering, public disorder etc) then it will open the way for other crimes. It is this sort of idea that has informed policy makers in places like Switzerland and Singapore, where there is a very hevey fine for anyone caught chewing gum in public (for fear of the litter problem it creates.

It wasn't that it was because it was an anti-Republican slogan, it was that it was a slogan in general.

The Parisian window thesis was a thesis developed by an English, somewhat eccentric sociologist (whose name I forget precisiely). But what he did was he said that crime works in the same was as an old abandoned parsian factory. If you smash one of the windows in an old grided window frame, while all the others are intact, then you can be sure that within a week, well over half of those windows will be smashed. In the same way with crime, if low level crimes are allowed to slink by (grafiti, littering, public disorder etc) then it will open the way for other crimes. It is this sort of idea that has informed policy makers in places like Switzerland and Singapore, where there is a very hevey fine for anyone caught chewing gum in public (for fear of the litter problem it creates.

I thought it might be that, upon reflection.

And even though the 7th is two weeks away, more or less, early voting started here in Colorado on Monday, so I can see the mall being an active polling place already. Not all states have that but it's gaining in popularity.

It wasn't that it was because it was an anti-Republican slogan, it was that it was a slogan in general.
That's right.

Laws will not be obeyed unless they're enforced consistently.

Why would they consider towing her car rather than ripping off the damn bumper sticker?

She broke the law. She is a bad woman for doing what she did. It does not matter if it was a republican bumber sticker or a green one or whatever. She broke the law. The heck with her. I can imagine her to be a stupid fat middleage Kansas woman who probably henpecks her husband I bet. Doesn't think the law applies to her because she is somehow above the law. Grumble.

She broke the law. She is a bad woman for doing what she did. It does not matter if it was a republican bumber sticker or a green one or whatever. She broke the law. The heck with her. I can imagine her to be a stupid fat middleage Kansas woman who probably henpecks her husband I bet. Doesn't think the law applies to her because she is somehow above the law. Grumble.

I like you; you're silly.

Seriously, though, the law is a silly law that was likely selectively enforced. Or maybe it wasn't. Either way, if she had a car with a bumper sticker like that outside a mall where there was no voting going on, then the law needs to give it a rest. Maybe if they have to, they should have written her a warning. After all, this seemed to come out of nowhere.

Also, the whole bit about her "henpecking her husband" and being a "stupid fat middleage" woman are...jeez, there's some logical fallacy for this...I don't think ad hominem fits...something does...help me out here...

This is absurd.

Metcalf South Mall is a large, popular shopping mall, at which I happen to shop fairly frequently. I have never seen fewer than several hundred cars in its parking lot. I have absolutely no doubt that, at any given time during mall hours, there are dozens of cars present with political bumper stickers. I also have no doubt that many if not most of those present have no idea that the mall is a polling place - as I mentioned, I shop there often, and I certainly didn't know, and even if I had known, I doubt it would have occurred to me that a bumper sticker on someone's car could be construed as "campaigning." I don't know what the person who reported this was trying to accomplish, but it really is very silly.

Having read the article, and the more I read responses, the more I see that it was an overzealous and oversensitive GOP voter/supporter who happened to know about the law who was just aggravated enough to feel compelled to call the police. Had the police not been notified, nothing would have happened.

I agree with the Parisian Window theory, in that every law needs to be enforced on every incidence, but "campaigning" to me means support of a specific candidate or ballot issue. Merely insinuating that "GOP" means "Grand Oil Party" does not offer support to a candidate or an issue. It's a non-specific ideological stance. If the sticker in question is interpreted to be campaign-related and subject to this law, then surely vehicles with, say, rainbow-colored triangles shouldn't be allowed within 250 feet of a polling place, either. Why? Because, just as it's assumed that the GOP stickered car belonged to a Democrat (as opposed to a Libertarian or other party), it could also be assumed that the triangle-sporting car belongs to a Democrat. It then follows that a car sporting the sticker "know Jesus, know peace" or the Christian fish symbol might be assumed to be a Republican-owned vehicle. Do you see where this is heading?

The law is necessary, but needs to be enforced within reasonable parameters. Here's why: many people go to the polls with no idea who they're voting for in many races (if you doubt this, who did you cast your vote for in the Sewer District Commissioner race on your last ballot?). Seeing a poster or other advert with a candidate's name on it could easily plant that name into the subconscious mind of that undecided voter, thus influencing that person's vote. However, a sticker taking a swipe at a perceived flaw of an entire party has no name which the voter might be drawn to remember in the booth -- just a party. A voter is infinitely less likely to go in undecided and have their vote influenced by party-line stereotypes they see at the last minute than candidate names they see at the last minute.

Finally, no statement was made concerning whether or not voting was actually taking place at the date and time in question. So those who are chanting that no voting was happening need to stop, or show us where that's been confirmed. I will agree that if no voting was going on, the law is moot...or should be.

I like you; you're silly.

Seriously, though, the law is a silly law that was likely selectively enforced. Or maybe it wasn't. Either way, if she had a car with a bumper sticker like that outside a mall where there was no voting going on, then the law needs to give it a rest. Maybe if they have to, they should have written her a warning. After all, this seemed to come out of nowhere.

Also, the whole bit about her "henpecking her husband" and being a "stupid fat middleage" woman are...jeez, there's some logical fallacy for this...I don't think ad hominem fits...something does...help me out here...

Allow me to direct your attention to the OP here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504635) ...

She broke the law. Period. She deserves whatever punishment committing such a criminal act entails.

I like you; you're silly.

Seriously, though, the law is a silly law that was likely selectively enforced. Or maybe it wasn't. Either way, if she had a car with a bumper sticker like that outside a mall where there was no voting going on, then the law needs to give it a rest. Maybe if they have to, they should have written her a warning. After all, this seemed to come out of nowhere.

Also, the whole bit about her "henpecking her husband" and being a "stupid fat middleage" woman are...jeez, there's some logical fallacy for this...I don't think ad hominem fits...something does...help me out here...

Idiocy?

Allow me to direct your attention to the OP here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504635) ...

No kidding. That was my suspicion for why this Freedonia chap was silly; this post that I responded to was my proof.

She broke the law. Period. She deserves whatever punishment committing such a criminal act entails.

She broke a stupid law. She broke a law she had never heard of that, frankly, few people have heard of. And don't give me that "ignorance is no excuse" line. A lot of people have to have been ignorant if she had been doing this for some time and this was the first time anyone did anything about it.

But enough about that. I guarantee that, if it were a pro-Bush bumper sticker, you would be crying for the cop's head for this.

No kidding. That was my suspicion for why this Freedonia chap was silly; this post that I responded to was my proof.



She broke a stupid law. She broke a law she had never heard of that, frankly, few people have heard of. And don't give me that "ignorance is no excuse" line. A lot of people have to have been ignorant if she had been doing this for some time and this was the first time anyone did anything about it.

But enough about that. I guarantee that, if it were a pro-Bush bumper sticker, you would be crying for the cop's head for this.

I don't think the law itself is stupid at all. The enforcement in this case seems to have been, shall we say ... selective? And certainly there should be some slack for the parking lot versus inside the mall, but, to quote the Mikado, that's the slovenly way these acts are drawn.

I don't think the law itself is stupid at all. The enforcement in this case seems to have been, shall we say ... selective? And certainly there should be some slack for the parking lot versus inside the mall, but, to quote the Mikado, that's the slovenly way these acts are drawn.

If the article made any distinction as to whether or not there was voting going on inside the mall, I could tell you for sure what I thought of the enforcement. If there was no voting, there's no need for enforcement. When it's not a polling place, it's just a mall. If there was voting going on, Icould see it, though I really can't imagine how much effect an anti-GOP bumper sticket has on a person's vote.

If the article made any distinction as to whether or not there was voting going on inside the mall, I could tell you for sure what I thought of the enforcement. If there was no voting, there's no need for enforcement. When it's not a polling place, it's just a mall. If there was voting going on, Icould see it, though I really can't imagine how much effect an anti-GOP bumper sticket has on a person's vote.

Actually, yes, the article is a little short on details. Early voting might have been going on, who knows? The law doesn't take into account modern things like shopping malls, I'm sure. And someone decided to be cute and call the cops.

Tryin' this again in smaller chunks:

POINT ONE

Having read the article, and the more I read responses, the more I see that it was an overzealous and oversensitive GOP voter/supporter who happened to know about the law who was just aggravated enough to feel compelled to call the police. Had the police not been notified, nothing would have happened.

POINT TWO

I agree with the Parisian Window theory, in that every law needs to be enforced on every incidence, but "campaigning" to me means support of a specific candidate or ballot issue. Merely insinuating that "GOP" means "Grand Oil Party" does not offer support to a candidate or an issue. It's a non-specific ideological stance. If the sticker in question is interpreted to be campaign-related and subject to this law, then surely vehicles with, say, rainbow-colored triangles shouldn't be allowed within 250 feet of a polling place, either. Why? Because, just as it's assumed that the GOP stickered car belonged to a Democrat (as opposed to a Libertarian or other party), it could also be assumed that the triangle-sporting car belongs to a Democrat. It then follows that a car sporting the sticker "know Jesus, know peace" or the Christian fish symbol might be assumed to be a Republican-owned vehicle. Do you see where this is heading?

POINT THREE

The law is necessary, but needs to be enforced within reasonable parameters. Here's why: many people go to the polls with no idea who they're voting for in many races (if you doubt this, who did you cast your vote for in the Sewer District Commissioner race on your last ballot?). Seeing a poster or other advert with a candidate's name on it could easily plant that name into the subconscious mind of that undecided voter, thus influencing that person's vote. However, a sticker taking a swipe at a perceived flaw of an entire party has no name which the voter might be drawn to remember in the booth -- just a party. A voter is infinitely less likely to go in undecided and have their vote influenced by party-line stereotypes they see at the last minute than candidate names they see at the last minute.

POINT LAST

Finally, no statement was made concerning whether or not voting was actually taking place at the date and time in question. So those who are chanting that no voting was happening need to stop, or show us where that's been confirmed. I will agree that if no voting was going on, the law is moot...or should be.

she was breaking the law?

when I volunteered in 2004 at the polling place they asked me not to wear my American flag pin, I actually was asked to take it off and put it in my purse because it might affect voting.......even though the little stickers we hand out have a flag on them :confused: I wonder who they thought I was supporting with my little pin?

Wow, they give the volunteers at the polls here little lapel pin flags to wear.
The only group I can think of which might have any legitimate gripe about an unadorned US flag pin affecting voting in an Oklahoma polling place is one of the Native American tribes.

St Jello Biafra;11864903']Why would they consider towing her car rather than ripping off the damn bumper sticker?
Property rights.

It was set up for early voting.

http://www.jocoelection.org/voters/AdvanceVoting.htm

Metcalf South Shopping Center, Northwest Mall entrance, 9531 Metcalf, Overland Park
October 24 - November 4
Monday - Friday 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

It was set up for early voting.

http://www.jocoelection.org/voters/AdvanceVoting.htm

Metcalf South Shopping Center, Northwest Mall entrance, 9531 Metcalf, Overland Park
October 24 - November 4
Monday - Friday 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

thanks that's what I thought.

Seriously, though, the law is a silly law that was likely selectively enforced. Or maybe it wasn't. Either way, if she had a car with a bumper sticker like that outside a mall where there was no voting going on, then the law needs to give it a rest. Maybe if they have to, they should have written her a warning. After all, this seemed to come out of nowhere.


1. It was set up for early voting

2. Prove it was selectively enforced. This was reported to the police, it wasnt as if the police let in all the anti-democrat bumper stickers but then their tollerance was not above the anti-republicans

If that is the case, than I believe that the mall should have a blantlantly obvious sign saying that early voting is going on. I also think the law needs to be rewritten so that it says mentioning a specific person is against the law. Having Anti-Reblican, Pro Democrat, or Anti-Democrat should all be legal. Now, things like Anti-Bush should be against the rules, but only because it mentions Bush. Also, do they consider support our troops stickers as one such illegal ticket?

She broke a stupid law. She broke a law she had never heard of that, frankly, few people have heard of. And don't give me that "ignorance is no excuse" line. A lot of people have to have been ignorant if she had been doing this for some time and this was the first time anyone did anything about it.

Ignorance is not an excuse, as much as you would like it to be. If you are unfamiliar with the penal code, read it prior to committing an illegal act. The fact that many policemen were hesitant to fine this particular person for her transgressions simply indicates that increased police funding is necessary and/or that the police force is rife with biased liberals.

Ignorance is not an excuse, as much as you would like it to be. If you are unfamiliar with the penal code, read it prior to committing an illegal act. The fact that many policemen were hesitant to fine this particular person for her transgressions simply indicates that increased police funding is necessary and/or that the police force is rife with biased liberals.

That or its a stupid law that they never had to deal with in the past because most people except for the asshat who reported it are reasonable

well, because it's kansas.

Ignorance is not an excuse, as much as you would like it to be. If you are unfamiliar with the penal code, read it prior to committing an illegal act. The fact that many policemen were hesitant to fine this particular person for her transgressions simply indicates that increased police funding is necessary and/or that the police force is rife with biased liberals.

Perhaps I misread exactly how this law is supposed to work but I don't think there is a specific provision in the law against bumper stickers of that type. They may just have figured to interpret the law as they did because it is they who are biased towards conservatives. It sounds pretty ridiculous to argue that a bumper sticker is campaigning.

It sounds pretty ridiculous to argue that a bumper sticker is campaigning.

It is best not to go down that particular slippery slope but just have a carpet ban on all forms of campaigning. If a small bumper sticker is allowed, what about a big van painted with anti-GOP messages? Where do we draw the line?

well, because it's kansas.

Just so you know, Overland Park is not exactly what people think of when they think of Kansas. It's a middle-to-upper-class suburb of Kansas City, located right on the Missouri border. You find about as many liberals as conservatives there, in my experience.

It is best not to go down that particular slippery slope but just have a carpet ban on all forms of campaigning. If a small bumper sticker is allowed, what about a big van painted with anti-GOP messages? Where do we draw the line?

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Humans deal with fuzzy boundaries every day. For example, when is a person an adult in New Jersey? At 16 they have reached the age of consent. At 18 they can vote and join the military. At 21 they can finally drink. Still that doesn't confuse people into thinking that a five year old can do those things.

A better law would ban only those signs on vehicles that aren't permanently attatched with adhesive and that exceed a certain size. That way you can cruise up there with a bumper sticker, but a car covered with campaign signs would be banned.

It is best not to go down that particular slippery slope but just have a carpet ban on all forms of campaigning. If a small bumper sticker is allowed, what about a big van painted with anti-GOP messages? Where do we draw the line?

At some reasonable point cause most reasonable informed people know that slipery slopes are often a logical fallacy

It's adorable how "OMG FALLACY!!111" is the new e-trend. :cool:

It's adorable how "OMG FALLACY!!111" is the new e-trend. :cool:

Hey when someone uses a common one like that ... as is for some strange reason common among the neocons.

Dont blame the ones pointing out the flaw in their reasoning blame the person with the flawed reasoning

Hey when someone uses a common one like that ... as is for some strange reason common among the neocons.

Dont blame the ones pointing out the flaw in their reasoning blame the person with the flawed reasoning

I wasn't casting blame? You can't deny that the fallacy hunt has increased substantially semi-recently and more websites detailing the different types have been springing up.

I'm all for being reasonable, and as such, it's silly to claim either the neo-cons or bleeding-hearts are any more logical than the other.

It's adorable how "OMG FALLACY!!111" is the new e-trend. :cool:

It's adorable how N00Bs love to post smileys rather than debate.

I wasn't casting blame? You can't deny that the fallacy hunt has increased substantially semi-recently and more websites detailing the different types have been springing up.

I'm all for being reasonable, and as such, it's silly to claim either the neo-cons or bleeding-hearts are any more logical than the other.

I am not clamining such things ... but it has been a tendancy on this forum...

I have not really noticed a difference on here as far as the number of reportings go ... if anything it has been less so but maybe thats cause I have not seen quite so many gay marrige debates latly

It's adorable how N00Bs love to post smileys rather than debate.

Yeah, I really should have included text with that post. Sorry.

I don't think any judge would take this too seriously. Mostly they wave these types of cases through just so they can go and play a round of golf.

I am not clamining such things ... but it has been a tendancy on this forum...

I have not really noticed a difference on here as far as the number of reportings go ... if anything it has been less so but maybe thats cause I have not seen quite so many gay marrige debates latly

Really? The "slippery slope" argument is used constantly in regards to security measures taken by the government--e.g., "NEXT THEY'LL BE INSTALLING VIDEO CAMERAS IN OUR HOMES! 1984!"

Really? The "slippery slope" argument is used constantly in regards to security measures taken by the government--e.g., "NEXT THEY'LL BE INSTALLING VIDEO CAMERAS IN OUR HOMES! 1984!"

Have not noticed that actualy ... But I tend to just poke into thoes sort of threads from time to time rather then holding a long debate in them

I tend do that more in the gay marrige or religous based threads

Also note you have to watch how you apply calling the fallicy ... not all slipery slopes are falicies ... they just often are

Really? The "slippery slope" argument is used constantly in regards to security measures taken by the government--e.g., "NEXT THEY'LL BE INSTALLING VIDEO CAMERAS IN OUR HOMES! 1984!"

Better then the "if we don't torture terrorists then they will be creeping in our backyards before you know it! Rights for terrorists is a slippery slope to the destruction of America!"

I don't think any judge would take this too seriously. Mostly they wave these types of cases through just so they can go and play a round of golf.
The article did say there was no fine, just a court appearance.

This is one of those stories that I had hoped had another angle. You know, a dead body in the trunk, or a car that was implicated in a drive-by shooting ... Something more than what seems to be a trite reason to tie up a judge, prosecutor, policeman, and defendant for what will more than likely be just an admonishment to avoid doing it again.

Have not noticed that actualy ... But I tend to just poke into thoes sort of threads from time to time rather then holding a long debate in them

I tend do that more in the gay marrige or religous based threads

Also note you have to watch how you apply calling the fallicy ... not all slipery slopes are falicies ... they just often are

I realize that.

I dunno, I've mostly been using LJ for forum purposes for the past few years. If you're ever interested in observing complete nutcases from all over the spectrum getting into heated arguments that make them all look insane, browse political communities. Of course, there are also actual good debates half the time as well.

Better then the "if we don't torture terrorists then they will be creeping in our backyards before you know it! Rights for terrorists is a slippery slope to the destruction of America!"

I live in a red state and in all the debates I've seen and participated in, no one's ever said anything like that. I've seen crazy shit from the neo-cons, but not that one specifically.

But that's irrelevant, as I was expressly forbidden by one of my best friends from NYC to associate with your kind. :p

I live in a red state and in all the debates I've seen and participated in, no one's ever said anything like that. I've seen crazy shit from the neo-cons, but not that one specifically.

But that's irrelevant, as I was expressly forbidden by one of my best friends from NYC to associate with your kind. :p

Lol I have heard that out of some of the uber concervitives up this way and I am in a blue state lol

I live in a red state and in all the debates I've seen and participated in, no one's ever said anything like that. I've seen crazy shit from the neo-cons, but not that one specifically.

But that's irrelevant, as I was expressly forbidden by one of my best friends from NYC to associate with your kind. :p

You haven't heard that arguement? Amazing. That is what it comes down to for those who support the Terror Bill. By not torturing you are risking the destruction of the country! Luckily it seems more people are realizing the foolishness of this. Won't really find out until next Tuesday though I guess...

Lol I have heard that out of some of the uber concervitives up this way and I am in a blue state lol

It's probably a matter of location, then. I think when in the minority, people tend to feel obligated to go to extremes with their politics; in Texas the republicans are generally pretty relaxed, and I noticed the same when in North Eastern states. Democrats in red states and republicans in blue states, however....

I got behind some guy in a truck a couple months ago, wish I would've had a camera phone. His license plate said F The Left (can't remember exactly how it was put - but the meaning was obvious) .. had all sorts of pro war, anti peace stickers on his back window. Cracked me up. I had to honk my horn and give him a thumbs up just for the laugh I got out of it. I wasn't laughing at him tho, just the fact. If it was a Virginia tag, I would've thought I had just seen DK.

she was breaking the law?

when I volunteered in 2004 at the polling place they asked me not to wear my American flag pin, I actually was asked to take it off and put it in my purse because it might affect voting.......even though the little stickers we hand out have a flag on them :confused: I wonder who they thought I was supporting with my little pin?

Republicans I'm sure.

Republicans I'm sure.

Dude, I'm liberal and have an American flag pin on my Kevin Harvick NASCAR cap. The American flag doesn't belong exclusively to any political party.

Really? The "slippery slope" argument is used constantly in regards to security measures taken by the government--e.g., "NEXT THEY'LL BE INSTALLING VIDEO CAMERAS IN OUR HOMES! 1984!"
The slippery slope is only a fallacy if there's a difference in kind somewhere along the slope. If it's just a difference in degree, slippery slope concerns are entirely valid.

It's also completely irrelevant on this issue. There's a prohibition against campaigning at polling places. She violated the law. She should be punished for that.

It's really simple.

Dude, I'm liberal and have an American flag pin on my Kevin Harvick NASCAR cap. The American flag doesn't belong exclusively to any political party.

I didn't say it did. I was repsonding to her question as to who they thought she was supporting by wearing it. I bet I'm right too. Can't prove it tho heh.

It is this sort of idea that has informed policy makers in places like Switzerland and Singapore, where there is a very hevey fine for anyone caught chewing gum in public (for fear of the litter problem it creates.

This wording really makes it sound like chewing gum was illegal in Switzerland :eek:

Technically she broke the law and technically she should get in trouble. Technically I support this, though I think that bumper sticker is a little far from "campaigning" and if it's enough to get someone ticketed, I'd like to see a cop go through that parking lot and ticket every car with a Bush/Cheney '04 bumper sticker still on it. And it's good to see the legal system get tied up prosecuting this instead of people committing actually harmful crimes.

I was about to get all angry about this and then I actually saw the bumper sticker in the picture. I'm no Republican, but that paricular slogan shows a remarkable ignorance that I can't say as I sympathize with. People say we're going to war in the middle east for oil, and that we're only there so that the Big Businesses can make money....


...except that no one is making any money. For all the raving I hear about Big Oil sucking off the government's proverbial pud, I can't help but notice we're still running a rather hefy defecit. This war is costing us money.

...except that no one is making any money.

Halliburton is doing fairly well. But, yes, the war was a failure in pretty much all of its objectives; the Bush Administration's incompetence interfered.

For all the raving I hear about Big Oil sucking off the government's proverbial pud, I can't help but notice we're still running a rather hefy defecit. This war is costing us money.

Costing the government money. Whether it is costing Big Oil money is another question entirely.

Edit: And their real concern was neither Big Oil nor money (with the exception of the usual war profiteering) but simply the geopolitical advantage of controlling a large supply of oil.

Halliburton is doing fairly well. But, yes, the war was a failure in pretty much all of its objectives; the Bush Administration's incompetence interfered.
If I'd have had the money at the time, I would not have hesitated to buy Haliburton stock immediately prior to the war.

Costing the government money. Whether it is costing Big Oil money is another question entirely.
News flash: When something costs the government lots of money, all of us pay for it. You should know this, since according to my previous encounters with you, taxation is perfectly justified and it's our duty as citizens to remunerate the government for each and every expenditure it should choose to incur. Regardless of how profitable it is for "Big Oil" they're going to lose a hefty chunk of that income in corporate income tax, to pay the government back for the enormous amounts of money lost in this venture. Likewise, the buck will also be passed to the "rank and file" taxpayers such as ourselves.

Furthermore, the oil companies wouldn't be able to turn much of a profit unless they had someone to sell the oil to [like... I dunno, us?]. I'm failing to see a flood of new gas at our filling stations. The market is kind of like science: it works whether you beleive in it or not; and if the oil companies had suddenly come into huge reserves you'd see it reflected in the prices, regardless of their greed.

News flash: When something costs the government lots of money, all of us pay for it. You should know this, since according to my previous encounters with you, taxation is perfectly justified and it's our duty as citizens to remunerate the government for each and every expenditure it should choose to incur.

Actually, I never said anything even approaching "each and every expenditure it should choose to incur"; I said quite explicitly that taxation for bad purposes (say, wars of aggression) is unjust. If anything, in such cases the moral duty goes in the opposite direction.

Regardless of how profitable it is for "Big Oil" they're going to lose a hefty chunk of that income in corporate income tax, to pay the government back for the enormous amounts of money lost in this venture. Likewise, the buck will also be passed to the "rank and file" taxpayers such as ourselves.

Furthermore, the oil companies wouldn't be able to turn much of a profit unless they had someone to sell the oil to [like... I dunno, us?]. I'm failing to see a flood of new gas at our filling stations. The market is kind of like science: it works whether you beleive in it or not; and if the oil companies had suddenly come into huge reserves you'd see it reflected in the prices, regardless of their greed.

They have not. Oil production in Iraq under the occupation has been a miserable failure, and it is far too brazen, even for the Bush Administration, to just give the oil reserves to Big Oil. But neither of those truths affect the possibility that the war was fought with the aim of controlling oil in mind, whatever the success or failure of that attempt.

I'm not convinced that the war was fought directly for Big Oil, anyway. There are strategic concerns involved as well with the oil, which likely played a larger part. But had Iraq's major export been something innocuous, it would never have happened.

Actually, I never said anything even approaching "each and every expenditure it should choose to incur"; I said quite explicitly that taxation for bad purposes (say, wars of aggression) is unjust. If anything, in such cases the moral duty goes in the opposite direction.
OK. Hold that thought, and then try this on for size:

How do you define a "bad purpose?" Of course you specified "wars of aggression" but I would certainly hope that's not the only possible manfeasance. Basically you're telling me that it's OK for the government to take my money if it does certain things with it. This, my friends, is what we call a "slippery slope." To me it doesn't matter whether a theif buys an 8 ball of coke or lunch for an old lady: my money's still gone and he had no right to take it. I see no reason to confer this ability on the government just because they're "not in it for the money" [which they are, but that's another story] or because they're around for the "greater good."

Please, please read this part and if you choose to respond to only one sentence or two of my post please make sure it's this:

My references to your endorsement of the government's spending habits was not the point of that passage. My point was that all of us are losing money as a result of this war. The idea that it's driven by plutocratic interests is a ridiculous one. I don't mind that you've defended yourself per se, but I'm irritated that you overlooked my point completely in favor of a tangental nothing.

They have not. Oil production in Iraq under the occupation has been a miserable failure, and it is far too brazen, even for the Bush Administration, to just give the oil reserves to Big Oil. But neither of those truths affect the possibility that the war was fought with the aim of controlling oil in mind, whatever the success or failure of that attempt.

I'm not convinced that the war was fought directly for Big Oil, anyway. There are strategic concerns involved as well with the oil, which likely played a larger part. But had Iraq's major export been something innocuous, it would never have happened.
For once you're right. The Iraq war had everything to do with [i]Israel and little or nothing to do with oil [since we never got that much oil from Iraq anyway]. If we wanted to strongarm nations with massive oil stockpiles, we'd have made short work of more obvious targets like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, and probably under the same moronic pretenses.

Iraq's export habits had nothing to do with it. It had everything to do with the strategic implications of Hussein obtaining a weapon with which he might strike at Israel.

I see a tornado. *runs*

OK. Hold that thought, and then try this on for size:

How do you define a "bad purpose?"

A purpose other than the public good.

Of course you specified "wars of aggression" but I would certainly hope that's not the only possible manfeasance.

No, it isn't.

Basically you're telling me that it's OK for the government to take my money if it does certain things with it.

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying (though I would dispute your characterization of it as "[your] money" in a morally relevant sense.)

This, my friends, is what we call a "slippery slope." To me it doesn't matter whether a theif buys an 8 ball of coke or lunch for an old lady: my money's still gone and he had no right to take it. I see no reason to confer this ability on the government just because they're "not in it for the money" [which they are, but that's another story] or because they're around for the "greater good."

We have been over this already, and since the last time it ended with you failing to reply substantively, I really don't care to go through it again.

For once you're right. The Iraq war had everything to do with Israel and little or nothing to do with oil [since we never got that much oil from Iraq anyway].

I said "as well with," not "as well as." I meant strategic interests specifically regarding oil.

The Iraq War had next to nothing to do with Israel; the US doesn't give a damn about Israel as long as it continues to serve as faithful lapdog, and the annual bribe of several billion dollars seems to suffice for guaranteeing that objective.

Indeed, when Israel begins to work at cross purposes to the US, as it did a while ago with weapons deals with China, the US government screams, and typically Israel complies.

If we wanted to strongarm nations with massive oil stockpiles, we'd have made short work of more obvious targets like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, and probably under the same moronic pretenses.

Saudi Arabia has a US-backed regime as it is, and pulling off an invasion of a democracy is considerably more difficult, in propaganda terms, than one of a brutal dictatorship.

Iraq's export habits had nothing to do with it. It had everything to do with the strategic implications of Hussein obtaining a weapon with which he might strike at Israel.

Israel has nuclear weapons, and is perfectly capable of defending itself. Hussein knew this, the US knew this. Regardless of what they actually thought about his WMD program, they probably did not expect him to actually use any of it, because it would have been suicidal on his part.

Edit: Either you added this part in after I hit "reply" or I'm quite blind, but I'll respond to it anyway:

Please, please read this part and if you choose to respond to only one sentence or two of my post please make sure it's this:

My references to your endorsement of the government's spending habits was not the point of that passage. My point was that all of us [including Big Oil] are losing money as a result of this war. The idea that it's driven by plutocratic interests is a ridiculous one.

The war was a failure - for everybody. The Bush Administration accomplished nothing, except for a good bit of war profiteering.

That has no bearing on the actual objective; it merely means that the objective was not met.

(Of course, I said exactly this in my last post, and in response to exactly this point... but then again, you have never seemed to take your opponents seriously enough to actually pay attention to what they say.)

I was about to get all angry about this and then I actually saw the bumper sticker in the picture. I'm no Republican, but that paricular slogan shows a remarkable ignorance that I can't say as I sympathize with. People say we're going to war in the middle east for oil, and that we're only there so that the Big Businesses can make money....


...except that no one is making any money. For all the raving I hear about Big Oil sucking off the government's proverbial pud, I can't help but notice we're still running a rather hefy defecit. This war is costing us money.

not that im agreeing with the idea that we went into iraq for the oil but i want to point out that lack of success isnt evidence of lack of intent.

A purpose other than the public good.
The "Public good" is a very broadly defined and morally ambiguous term. Let me give you an example. In the late '90s the Supreme Court decided that it didn't want drug users in public housing. It approved a measure to evict families from public housing if any member of that household was caught doing drugs. Sorry Millie, but little Johnny was puffing on a joint under the bleachers on Friday night. You're homeless now.

Who gets to decide what is in the "Public Good" and what isn't? Why can't we decide for our fucking selves?

No, it isn't.
You know, if you're not going to bother elaborating, there really wasn't much of a point to saying this. Honestly, it just looks stupid.

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying (though I would dispute your characterization of it as "[your] money" in a morally relevant sense.)
Oh, how convenient. Tax is justified as long as you like that the money happens to be funding? Guess what: almost every other political organization on the planet holds to this view. The result? An utterly unworkable cacaphony of conflicting and often blatantly contradictory interests. This is a completely untenable moral philosophy.

We have been over this already, and since the last time it ended with you failing to reply substantively, I really don't care to go through it again.
As I recall it ended up with you ignoring the bulk of my points, concerning yourself only with incidental tangents, and responding to enormous, complex chunks of text with awe-inspiring single sentences like "No, it isn't." [See above].

Swing and a miss.

I said "as well with," not "as well as." I meant strategic interests specifically regarding oil.

The Iraq War had next to nothing to do with Israel; the US doesn't give a damn about Israel as long as it continues to serve as faithful lapdog, and the annual bribe of several billion dollars seems to suffice for guaranteeing that objective.

Indeed, when Israel begins to work at cross purposes to the US, as it did a while ago with weapons deals with China, the US government screams, and typically Israel complies.

Stop right there. If we "dont give a damn" about Israel, then why do we send them billions of dollars in aid not to mention the bulk of their military infrastructure? American policy in the Middle East has been centered around Israel ever since it was fucking created. You're just grasping for straws, while laboring under the pretense [as most of my opponents do] that the opposite of whatever I say must be true.

Saudi Arabia has a US-backed regime as it is, and pulling off an invasion of a democracy is considerably more difficult, in propaganda terms, than one of a brutal dictatorship.
Beleive me, I wish every bit as much as you do that real, rational reasons would prevent or somehow hinder our politicians from waging their hair-brained wars. Politicians in this country have been doing remarkably stupid things foreign policy-wise for the better part of a century now. It would have been harder yes, but if our administration were half as oil-hungry as these bumper-sticker toting idiots would have you think, we'd be there in a few weeks regardless.

Israel has nuclear weapons, and is perfectly capable of defending itself. Hussein knew this, the US knew this. Regardless of what they actually thought about his WMD program, they probably did not expect him to actually use any of it, because it would have been suicidal on his part.
I'm familiar with the paramaters of Mutually Assured Destruction, and as I recall that threat did little do assuage the fears incurred by the Cold War. The fact that the Iraqi government would die shortly after deploying such weapons doesn't make the people on the business end of Hussein's ordinance any less dead. I'm sure he was fully aware of the situation and was acting accordingly.

The war was a failure - for everybody. The Bush Administration accomplished nothing, except for a good bit of war profiteering.

That has no bearing on the actual objective; it merely means that the objective was not met.
This is one of those strategic flat-earth theories that falls apart once you realize [as most people did] that the Iraqis would destroy their oil fields when forced with the prospect of evacuating them. The lack of an exit strategy also seems to indicate that Bush was angling for a long-term occupation, which is not exactly what I would call a money making endeavor, regardless of the windfall reaped by Big Oil profits.

I'll concede that economies often improve during wartime, and the recession we experienced in the late '90s was probably a factor in their decision making, even though it had already turned around by the time we ended up going in.

That said, I do actually beleive that Bush thinks taking out Saddam was the right thing to do. Sure, he's an evil bastard and I'd never vote for him, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start with "Bush is a bad man" as a political axiom and then develop all of my political ideas around that theme, laboring under the notion [as you are with me] that the opposite of whatever he does must be right. I live in a college town, so I've met hundreds of these people.

(Of course, I said exactly this in my last post, and in response to exactly this point... but then again, you have never seemed to take your opponents seriously enough to actually pay attention to what they say.)
You're right, I don't take them seriously, mainly because they consistently fail to impress me with their "logic" [I use the term loosely]. They chide me for not accepting "new ideas" which actually happen to be remarkably older than mine.

Who gets to decide what is in the "Public Good" and what isn't? Why can't we decide for our fucking selves?

We do. It's called "democracy."

(That said, what is actually in the public good is, obviously, not identical with what democratic institutions choose. There are various formulations of what it is that I would find acceptable, one of which is the maximization of average preference satisfaction.)

Oh, how convenient. Tax is justified as long as you like that the money happens to be funding? Guess what: almost every other political organization on the planet holds to this view. The result? An utterly unworkable cacaphony of conflicting and often blatantly contradictory interests. This is a completely untenable moral philosophy.

The fact that people disagree is not proof that there is no one right answer, as any moral objectivist should grant.

Taxation is justified as long as it actually does serve the public good, whatever I think of it. If the Iraq War did in fact serve the public good, taxation to support it would be justified despite my opposition.

Actually, as I recall it ended up much like this current "conversation" is: that is to say with you ignoring the bulk of my points, concerning yourself only with incidental tangents, and responding with awe-inspiring single sentences like "Not really." [See above].

Swing and a miss.

My recollection is different, but nevermind; this is likely to get us absolutely nowhere.

Stop right there. If we "dont give a damn" about Israel, then why do we send them billions of dollars in aid not to mention the bulk of their military infrastructure?

The answer is in the lines you quoted.

American policy in the Middle East has been centered around Israel ever since it was fucking created.

Not really; it has been centered on oil from the start. In the first decade or so of Israel's existence relations with the US were uncertain at best.

You're just grasping for straws, while laboring under the pretense [as most of my opponents do] that the opposite of whatever I say must be true.

You hold far too high an opinion of yourself. I have been arguing against the notion that US support for Israel was somehow responsible for the Iraq War for years; it is, as I'm sure you're aware, a quite common view among the Left.

Beleive me, I wish every bit as much as you do that real, rational reasons would prevent or somehow hinder our politicians from waging their hair-brained wars. Politicians in this country have been doing remarkably stupid things foreign policy-wise for the better part of a century now. It would have been harder yes, but if our administration were half as oil-hungry as these bumper-sticker toting idiots would have you think, we'd be there in a few weeks regardless.

I'm not saying the desire isn't there, merely that rallying public support for such a venture would have been far more difficult. Now, of course, it is utterly impossible.

I'm familiar with the parameters of Mutually Assured Destruction, and as I recall that threat did little do assuage the fears incurred by the Cold War. The fact that the Iraqi government would die shortly after deploying such weapons doesn't make the people on the business end of Hussein's ordinance any less dead. I'm sure he was fully aware of the situation and was acting accordingly.

Saddam Hussein's regime was hardly on the verge of producing nuclear weaponry anyway, so the point is moot.

This is one of those strategic flat-earth theories that falls apart once you realize [as most people did] that the Iraqis would destroy their oil fields when forced with the prospect of evacuating them.

Any post-invasion Iraqi regime would have restored them. They are essential to Iraq's economy.

Unless you think the oil reverses themselves could have just been made to cease to exist.

The lack of an exit strategy also seems to indicate that Bush was angling for a long-term occupation, which is not exactly what I would call a money making endeavor, regardless of the windfall reaped by Big Oil profits.

Agreed. It is fairly clear that they intended to establish a stable government, and that requires a long-term occupation. They miscalculated on two points - firstly, their capability to guarantee stability, and secondly, their capability to guarantee obedience. They have failed completely at the former, and partially at the latter.

I'll concede that economies often improve during wartime, and the recession we experienced in the late '90s was probably a factor in their decision making, even though it had already turned around by the time we ended up going in.

As far as domestic concerns go, simple political expediency probably played a part.

That said, I do actually beleive that Bush thinks taking out Saddam was the right thing to do.

Perhaps, but most likely this is his excuse, not his motive.

Sure, he's an evil bastard and I'd never vote for him, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start with "Bush is a bad man" as a political axiom and then develop all of my political ideas around that theme, laboring under the notion [as you are with me] that the opposite of whatever he does must be right. I live in a college town, so I've met hundreds of these people.

I'll agree with you that the fanatical hatred of Bush in some circles is quite irrational; he is a danger, as his concentration of executive power and curtailment of civil liberties indicate, but the US government was not exactly pure beforehand and will certainly not be purified simply by electing some fool with a "D" next to his name to replace him.

You're right, I don't take them seriously, mainly because they consistently fail to impress me with their "logic" [I use the term loosely].

You will never recognize the extent of their logic until you do take them seriously. By failing to take them seriously, in effect you presuppose your own conclusions and become incapable of engaging in rational debate.

You may regularly be conversing with people who are far less intelligent than you are, but it does not follow that everyone who disagrees with you is the same way. Whatever your moral system, it is simply intellectually dishonest to disregard points of views that are not yours because of your presupposed suspicions about the quality of argument.

http://www.wftv.com/politics/10173251/detail.html

It happened in Kansas. Why is Kansas so fucked up?

Because they can't evolve, the school board said they couldn't. They have to rely on intelligent design, and the designer screwed up.

Man, I need to stop hitting the "edit" button. Every time I go to respond I start wondering why, halfway through the posts, my quotations are within bracketed codes. The Moderator UI puts "Edit/Delete" right next to "Quote" and it keeps throwing me off... -.-

We do. It's called "democracy."

(That said, what is actually in the public good is, obviously, not identical with what democratic institutions choose. There are various formulations of what it is that I would find acceptable, one of which is the maximization of average preference satisfaction.)
I do not have a choice how the money that goes to the government is spent. Ergo, I, as a citizen, am afforded no ability to decide what is an appropriate use for that particular 30% of my paycheck and what isn't. Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that I don't give a good goddamn about the "public good" and feel no obligation to provide for it; the fact that I punch some holes in a ballot every two years isn't quite the profound political declaration you seem to think it is. Regardless of how I vote, car insurance will still be mandatory, I still won't be allowed to smoke in bars, and I'll lose somewhere between twenty-five and thirty cents on every dollar I earn. Why? Not because the system sucks, but because stupidity--not money--is and always has been the overriding factor in collective reasoning. When people gather in large numbers the result is almost invariably a lamentable one, whether it's the Salem Witch Trials, Nazism, or [gasp!] even voting.

The fact that people disagree is not proof that there is no one right answer, as any moral objectivist should grant.
I understand that much, I was just trying to point out how trite your argument was.

Taxation is justified as long as it actually does serve the public good, whatever I think of it. If the Iraq War did in fact serve the public good, taxation to support it would be justified despite my opposition.
Here we go with this nonsense again... Look, just about any action can have a demonstrably positive effect on certain sectors of the population. Military service may have saved thousands of troubled youths from gang warfare or what-have-you: as much as even typing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth [since it's an age old conservative lynchpin for mandatory military service], people deploy platitudes about the "public good" in a similar fashion in every conceivable area of politics. Again: denoting the 'public good' as the be-all and end-all of administrative morality is far too ambiguous to possibly be considered a viable foundation.

The answer is in the lines you quoted.
The idea that we're "Bribing" Israel is such a ridiculous one that I thought I was actually doing you a service by overlooking that particular statement. Such as it were, Israel has become both a financial and strategic investment for us.

Not really; it has been centered on oil from the start. In the first decade or so of Israel's existence relations with the US were uncertain at best.
Bullshit. The proximity of the Middle Eastern states [specifically Afghanistan and Iran] to the USSR led most US politicians to beleive that they were largely within the Soviet sphere of interest. Israel and the Arabs had been fighting from Day One, and each side was likely spurred on by the rival superpowers. At the time, Israel was likely seen by our politicians as a bulwark against widspread Bolshevization; hence all the political and financial support.

The United States was the first country to recognize Israel as a state and we sent them our first aid package in 1951, apparently in spite of "uncertain relations," according to you. Like any geopolitical relationship it's had its fluctuations, but the US and Israel have been strong allies since 1948.

You wonder why I accuse you of grasping for straws?

You hold far too high an opinion of yourself. I have been arguing against the notion that US support for Israel was somehow responsible for the Iraq War for years; it is, as I'm sure you're aware, a quite common view among the Left.
I've never heard anyone claim the Iraq war had anything to do with Israel; the Left and the miscellaneous other opponents of the war have been crying "Blood for Oil" since 2003. I live in probably one of the most democratic neighborhoods in the country and I've never once heard a liberal speak out against Israel, or suggest that we went to war for their sake. Now I'm sure it's possible that you've encountered this particular opinion a few times, and if you say so I beleive you when you claim that you argued against it [as you are now], but it's not a widespread beleif, so the idea that you've been "arguing against the notion for years" strikes me as a mite overblown.

I'm not saying the desire isn't there, merely that rallying public support for such a venture would have been far more difficult. Now, of course, it is utterly impossible.
Well, considering the rousing successes Bush had in gathering support for this war... oh wait!

Public support does not a strategic decision make.

Saddam Hussein's regime was hardly on the verge of producing nuclear weaponry anyway, so the point is moot.
Agreed. I am, for what it's worth, largely just playing the Devil's Advocate here; I don't much care for the war in Iraq either and I'm just as mad as the liberals that my money is being used for such an exasperatingly hopeless purpose. I'm just saying that if certain people wanted to make heaps of money, there are other much easier ways to do it.

Any post-invasion Iraqi regime would have restored them. They are essential to Iraq's economy.

Unless you think the oil reverses themselves could have just been made to cease to exist.
Yes, and this is another expenditure to be factored; one that certainly mitigates the money-making possibilities, no? I suppose I should thank you, in a way you strengthened my position by pointing that out.

Agreed. It is fairly clear that they intended to establish a stable government, and that requires a long-term occupation. They miscalculated on two points - firstly, their capability to guarantee stability, and secondly, their capability to guarantee obedience. They have failed completely at the former, and partially at the latter.
Sounds accurate. Perhaps their intent wasn't so much to secure immediate wealth for themselves, but to establish a friendly government [or series of friendly governments?] to bolster ourselves against Asia, much like we did against the Soviet Union back in the day. It's very likely that the American government is preparing for a second cold war.

Perhaps, but most likely this is his excuse, not his motive.
You're more than welcome to beleive that, and since neither of us will really be sure [since we're not Bush] it would probably be best to leave it at that. As morally misguided as the man is, I do honestly beleive that he thinks he did the right thing; indeed he likely had plans to do this before he even took office.

I'll agree with you that the fanatical hatred of Bush in some circles is quite irrational; he is a danger, as his concentration of executive power and curtailment of civil liberties indicate, but the US government was not exactly pure beforehand and will certainly not be purified simply by electing some fool with a "D" next to his name to replace him.
Very true. I don't think the real danger here is so much "Republican politicians" as it is "a government full of Republican politicians." The best strategy, in my opinion, is to keep the government as divided as possible. This is what made Clinton a reasonably decent President: he probably would have been a lot worse for us if he had a Democratic Congress behind him. Unfortunately, Bush's unpopularity alone will win the Dems heaps of votes. People in this country do not vote for candidates, they vote against candidates. Just look at the 2000 election. Did anyone really want Al Gore in the White House?

You will never recognize the extent of their logic until you do take them seriously. By failing to take them seriously, in effect you presuppose your own conclusions and become incapable of engaging in rational debate.

You may regularly be conversing with people who are far less intelligent than you are, but it does not follow that everyone who disagrees with you is the same way. Whatever your moral system, it is simply intellectually dishonest to disregard points of views that are not yours because of your presupposed suspicions about the quality of argument.
Actually, my previous comment was tounge-in-cheek, even though looking back over my post it doesn't appear as I did a good job of expressing it. If I didn't take them seriously, why would I bother responding cogently? I mean damn, just look at this post: it's monstrous! If I didn't take this seriously it wouldn't be worth my time to respond as I have.

Also, my suspicions are not "presupposed," rather they're readily manifest in almost every argument that's been presented to me; embodied in our case by the "public good" argument. I'm sorry, but when I see someone tell me "what's good is whatever satisfies the public good" my stomach turns, because that has been the reasoning behind nearly every administrative or humanitarian tyrrany you can possibly conjure.

Because they can't evolve, the school board said they couldn't. They have to rely on intelligent design, and the designer screwed up.

So why hasn't evolution weeded them out yet, if they're so stupid?

Strike two!

I do not have a choice how the money that goes to the government is spent. Ergo, I, as a citizen, am afforded no ability to decide what is an appropriate use for that particular 30% of my paycheck and what isn't. Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that I don't give a good goddamn about the "public good" and feel no obligation to provide for it; the fact that I punch some holes in a ballot every two years isn't quite the profound political declaration you seem to think it is. Regardless of how I vote, car insurance will still be mandatory, I still won't be allowed to smoke in bars, and I'll lose somewhere between twenty-five and thirty cents on every dollar I earn. Why? Not because the system sucks, but because stupidity--not money--is and always has been the overriding factor in collective reasoning. When people gather in large numbers the result is almost invariably a lamentable one, whether it's the Salem Witch Trials, Nazism, or [gasp!] even voting.

In a way this is true, one vote really counts for essentially nothing, but what you have to consider is that while there may only be one Melkor Unchained, there are lots of people who agree with you about car insurance, lots of people who want to smoke in bars, and lots of people who want lower taxes. Their influence does matter, they do impact policy decisions, and the only reason (well, aside from the undemocratic elements of our political system) they are not in power right now is that they are in the minority.

The fact that you do not agree with certain policy decisions does not mean that they are arbitrary, and does not mean that the population, viewed as a whole, is not capable of advancing its own preferences.

Furthermore, while policy decisions with which you disagree undoubtedly feature more prominently in your mind, there are other aspects of "collective reasoning" where your side has ended up victorious. No democracy has ever gone the path of Stalinism, for instance; pretty much all of them have some variety, however state regulated, of free market capitalism.

I understand that much, I was just trying to point out how trite your argument was.

It is no more "trite" than any of the alternatives.

Here we go with this nonsense again... Look, just about any action can have a demonstrably positive effect on certain sectors of the population. Military service may have saved thousands of troubled youths from gang warfare or what-have-you: as much as even typing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth [since it's an age old conservative lynchpin for mandatory military service], people deploy platitudes about the "public good" in a similar fashion in every conceivable area of politics. Again: denoting the 'public good' as the be-all and end-all of administrative morality is far too ambiguous to possibly be considered a viable foundation.

And people employed the "small government" argument in favor of slavery, too.

I have two major objections to the conservative use of "public good", upon which I would differentiate mine from theirs.

Firstly, as your example illustrates, they pursue the welfare of the people they claim to be helping by restraining their liberty. They wish to enforce the lifestyle they think is superior, and fail to consider that the people they wish to "help" may not agree. That choice is a choice that ultimately should be up to the individual, not to the state.

Undoubtedly your response to this will be something along the lines of "well, that's exactly what you're doing." There is a crucial difference, however. The sort of redistributive programs and public services I support do not have the objective of taking away your money to help you, but rather to help somebody else - to advance the public good, not yours in particular. You are trusted to make decisions for yourself, regarding your own interests, but not to make decisions that will benefit everybody, because as apologists for capitalism are so fond of pointing out, we are creatures who regularly act in our own self-interest, despite the fact that sometimes others are harmed or deprived as a result.

Secondly, I think conservative morality is a load of nonsense, and do not care to support policies based on it. I do not not think altruism is, however.

The idea that we're "Bribing" Israel is such a ridiculous one that I thought I was actually doing you a service by overlooking that particular statement. Such as it were, Israel has become both a financial and strategic investment for us.

Yes, the US government does gain from the bribery - that is why it does it. If I implied otherwise, I did not mean to.

Bullshit. The proximity of the Middle Eastern states [specifically Afghanistan and Iran] led most US politicians to beleive that they were largely within Russia's sphere of interest. Israel and the Arabs had been fighting from Day One, and each side was likely spurred on by the rival superpowers. At the time, Israel was likely seen by our politicians as a bulwark against widspread Bolshevization; hence all the political and financial support.

At the time, Israel was dominated by the political left, had a substantial Communist Party, and was friendly with much of the Eastern bloc. (Indeed, it received arms from Czechoslovakia in its war for independence.) It was no "bulwark." That came later, in the 1960s, as Nasser moved towards the Soviets.

The United States was the first country to recognize Israel as a state

The Soviets recognized it early as well.

and we sent them our first aid package in 1951, apparently in spite of "uncertain relations," according to you. Like any geopolitical relationship it's had its fluctuations, but the US and Israel have been strong allies since 1948.

Not true. In the early years, as far as the Western powers went Israel was closer to France; during the Sinai War it cooperated with the UK and France, and was stopped by the US and the Soviet Union.

I've never heard anyone claim the Iraq war had anything to do with Israel; the Left and the miscellaneous other opponents of the war have been crying "Blood for Oil" since 2003.

I've heard it incessantly. Have you ever been to an ANSWER rally?

I live in probably one of the most democratic neighborhoods in the country and I've never once heard a liberal speak out against Israel,

You've "never once heard a liberal speak out against Israel." Really? That only makes me think that you don't know very many leftists. A Democratic vote does not a leftist make.

or suggest that we went to war for their sake. Now I'm sure it's possible that you've encountered this particular opinion a few times, and if you say so I beleive you when you claim that you argued against it [as you are now], but it's not a widespread beleif, so the idea that you've been "arguing against the notion for years" strikes me as a mite overblown.

It's not, but believe as you will.

Well, considering the rousing successes Bush had in gathering support for this war... oh wait!

He did, it had around two-thirds support when he went in.

Agreed. I am, for what it's worth, largely just playing the Devil's Advocate here; I don't much care for the war in Iraq either and I'm just as mad as the liberals that my money is being used for such an exasperatingly hopeless purpose. I'm just saying that if certain people wanted to make heaps of money, there are other much easier ways to do it.

"Heaps of money" was just a side motive. You are right that there are far easier ways to do it; Halliburton got contracts for Hurricane Katrina damage repair, too.

My only objection to your position is not your insistence that the war wasn't fought for Big Oil, but rather your insistence that oil didn't matter in any context. I think it did, but more for strategic reasons than any corporate handout.

Yes, and this is another expenditure to be factored; one that certainly mitigates the money-making possibilities, no? I suppose I should thank you, in a way you strengthened my position by pointing that out.

Eh, true. But there are several trillion dollars' worth of oil there; it would have been worth it.

Sounds accurate. Perhaps their intent wasn't so much to secure immediate wealth for themselves, but to establish a friendly government [or series of friendly governments?] to bolster ourselves against Asia, much like we did against the Soviet Union back in the day. It's very likely that the American government is preparing for a second cold war.

Against China? There are elements of that, yes, especially in Central Asia (as there is against Russia.) China's interference in Latin America is undoubtedly also ruffling the feathers of US planners. But there is enough trade between the US and China that the hostility will likely never reach Cold War levels.

You're more than welcome to beleive that, and since neither of us will really be sure [since we're not Bush] it would probably be best to leave it at that. As morally misguided as the man is, I do honestly beleive that he thinks he did the right thing; indeed he likely had plans to do this before he even took office.

A fool, rather than a villain? It may be. You are right that I cannot claim to know. Regardless, like you I want him out.

Very true. I don't think the real danger here is so much "Republican politicians" as it is "a government full of Republican politicians." The best strategy, in my opinion, is to keep the government as divided as possible. This is what made Clinton a reasonably decent President: he probably would have been a lot worse for us if he had a Democratic Congress behind him.

I wouldn't mind a Democratic controlled government. To me, though probably not to you, they are marginally preferable on everything but gun control, and none of them seem to have the power ambition Bush seems to.

Unfortunately, Bush's unpopularity alone will win the Dems heaps of votes. People in this country do not vote for candidates, they vote against candidates.

These days, yes, because most of them do not like any of the options. It is a failure of our electoral system.

At least it guarantees that no one truly awful can stay in power for too long, though.

Just look at the 2000 election. Did anyone really want Al Gore in the White House?

Some did, but they were the same partisan liberals who worshipped Kerry because he happened to be nominated.

Actually, my previous comment was tounge-in-cheek, even though looking back over my post it doesn't appear as I did a good job of expressing it. If I didn't take them seriously, why would I bother responding cogently? I mean damn, just look at this post: it's monstrous! If I didn't take this seriously it wouldn't be worth my time to respond as I have.

No, you take the argument itself seriously; you present your point of view very strongly. You simply do not take your opponents, or their arguments, seriously. Sometimes, anyway; this time you are actually responding to what I am saying, and I don't doubt that it's happened before.

I am accused of the same thing regularly, and my accusers are probably right a good portion of the time.

Also, my suspicions are not "presupposed," rather they're readily manifest in almost every argument that's been presented to me; embodied in our case by the "public good" argument. I'm sorry, but when I see someone tell me "what's good is whatever satisfies the public good" my stomach turns, because that has been the reasoning behind nearly every administrative or humanitarian tyrrany you can possibly conjure.

Of course. It is a doctrine that can be easily misused. But so can most doctrines that are broad enough to actually deal with the problems of the world; all one can do is make the best attempt to avoid being misled.

I did provide a more explicit formulation than "public good", though - but, and actually this illustrates the point I'm making, I hesitated to do so because I know the formulation isn't complete. There's more to these questions than can be easily summarized; that's why we rely on vague terms like "public good."

Most of your last post looks pretty reasonable to me so I'm not going to go tit-for-tat with it like I usually do, but there are a couple of things I'd like to answer nonetheless:

You're right that Israel was closer to France at first, but the US did begin its aid program in 1951*, as you seem to be disputing [either that or you're disputing that Israel and the US have been "strong allies" since 1948--an equally dubious claim]. When the partition plan came to vote in the UN, American 'officials applied pressure to--and even threatened to withhold promised aid from--countries inclined to vote against the resolution.'[Sheldon L. Richman, Cato institute]

In fact, Sumner Welles said: "By direct order of the White House every form of pressure, direct and indirect, was brought to bear by American officials upon those countries outside of the Moslem world that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to partition. Representatives or intermediaries were employed by the White House to make sure that the necessary majority would at length be secured."

The US and Israel, then, have technically been buddy-buddy since before Israel was even a State, largely because of the American Zionists. Minor events nonwhistanding, Israel has been one of our closest allies for fifty years now. I honestly never though I'd ever argue about this.

And no, I haven't heard the liberals poo-poo Israel too terribly much lately; perhaps the smarter of them realize that it was a Democratic administration that promoted Zionism in the first place.

That aside, it seems we agree in principle that the acquisition of the area was made more for strategic gain than for immediate cash. To be quite sure, if the predominant product of the Middle East were bananas, no one would be as interested in it as they are. We only disagree, really [leaving aside the larger philosophical differences present between us, which I won't get into right now since I've heard it all before] on very specific points about the nature of Bush and his neoconservative camarilla.

We've reached the source of our misunderstanding when you say:

My only objection to your position is not your insistence that the war wasn't fought for Big Oil, but rather your insistence that oil didn't matter in any context. I think it did, but more for strategic reasons than any corporate handout.

I didn't mean to suggest that oil "didn't matter in any context," rather I was combatting the assumption that it was the [i]primary interest or impetus. Of course nations will do anything within their power to acquire and maintain a steady stream of resources, and given American transportation habits, oil is of specific import. I just think "Blood for Oil" is a stupid and oversimplified way of looking at things, even if it may be a corollary to our actual interests.

While researching for this and my previous posts, I stumbled across This article, (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html) which is an interesting take on American inverventionism that the both of us can probably agree on, more or less. Check it out, even if you only have the time [or lifespan -.-] to read a section of it.

*Source (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_us_support.php)

You're right that Israel was closer to France at first, but the US did begin its aid program in 1951*, as you seem to be disputing [either that or you're disputing that Israel and the US have been "strong allies" since 1948--an equally dubious claim].

The second one.

When the partition plan came to vote in the UN, American 'officials applied pressure to--and even threatened to withhold promised aid from--countries inclined to vote against the resolution.'[Sheldon L. Richman, Cato institute]

In fact, Sumner Welles said: "By direct order of the White House every form of pressure, direct and indirect, was brought to bear by American officials upon those countries outside of the Moslem world that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to partition. Representatives or intermediaries were employed by the White House to make sure that the necessary majority would at length be secured."

The US and Israel, then, have technically been buddy-buddy since before Israel was even a State, largely because of the American Zionists. Minor events nonwhistanding, Israel has been one of our closest allies for fifty years now. I honestly never though I'd ever argue about this.

The US supported the creation of the state, yes, but it was not particularly fond of its policies, nor did it actively use Israel as a client state, until considerably later. There were plenty of people skeptical of the merits of supporting it early on, and Eisenhower's policy, while not hostile, was not excessively friendly either, as the Sinai War and his reaction to it demonstrates.

But let's not argue about this, it's a substantial digression from the original point.

And no, I haven't heard the liberals poo-poo Israel too terribly much lately; perhaps the smarter of them realize that it was a Democratic administration that promoted Zionism in the first place.

You are talking to the wrong liberals, I would guess. The left-wing movement against the Iraq War was pretty explicitly hostile towards Israeli policy towards the Palestinians; in the anti-occupation marches their refrain has been ending the occupation of Palestine as well as that of Iraq.

I didn't mean to suggest that oil "didn't matter in any context," rather I was combatting the assumption that it was the [i]primary interest or impetus. Of course nations will do anything within their power to acquire and maintain a steady stream of resources, and given American transportation habits, oil is of specific import. I just think "Blood for Oil" is a stupid and oversimplified way of looking at things, even if it may be a corollary to our actual interests.

It is a political slogan, if a remarkably ineffective one; it is supposed to be "stupid and oversimplified."

While researching for this and my previous posts, I stumbled across This article, (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html) which is an interesting take on American inverventionism that the both of us can probably agree on, more or less. Check it out, even if you only have the time [or lifespan -.-] to read a section of it.

Skimmed the first bit, bookmarked it. I'll get to it eventually; seems interesting.

You are talking to the wrong liberals, I would guess.
A distinct possibility. I wouldn't say as I have my finger to the liberal pulse to begin with, so I don't know exactly what the party line is right now.

The left-wing movement against the Iraq War was pretty explicitly hostile towards Israeli policy towards the Palestinians; in the anti-occupation marches their refrain has been ending the occupation of Palestine as well as that of Iraq.
Another wonderful example of unbridled idiocy from the American left: campaign hard for the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East, and then get pissed off and complain when we send heaps of aid to it because it's geographically sieged by Arabs. Part of the reason why Democrats can't win elections is because most of us can't figure out where they stand on a particular issue. In 1948, the Democratic Party lobbied hard for the partition because the Republicans were making an issue of it and they feared losing Jewish support. Now, basically, they're reneging on a moral principle.


It is a political slogan, if a remarkably ineffective one; it is supposed to be "stupid and oversimplified."
I undertand, but it gets people angry at the wrong things. It promotes a narrow view of the situation. It discourages us from thinking about it; presenting us instead with a tidy little bit of subtle anticapitalism to capture young voters. As a political mechanism it is no doubt accomplishing its purpose, I'm sure; but it's still erroneous and it still pisses me off.

An original post by Melkor Unchained

Right on! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11866570&postcount=88)

A distinct possibility. I wouldn't say as I have my finger to the liberal pulse to begin with, so I don't know exactly what the party line is right now.

There is no liberal "party line."

You seem to be talking to people who are basically in the political middle of the Democratic Party; "No Blood for Oil", pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-welfare, pro-"fair trade", etc., but not really attracted to the radical critiques of US society and foreign policy. To people like this, the US government is basically good, except when Republicans come into power, at which point it becomes simply diabolical.

The ones I'm talking about are, to reuse an earlier reference, the ones who attend ANSWER rallies and don't tone out the speeches. They are substantially to the left of the group I mentioned above, recognize that the Democrats are involved in the foreign policy mess as well as the Republicans, and don't hesitate to harshly criticize Israel, despite the near-universal support for that state amount the Democratic Party leadershop.

Another wonderful example of unbridled idiocy from the American left: campaign hard for the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East, and then get pissed off and complain when we send heaps of aid to it because it's geographically sieged by Arabs. Part of the reason why Democrats can't win elections is because most of us can't figure out where they stand on a particular issue.

The Democrats are not at all synonymous American Left. The American Left is well to the left of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is staunchly supportive of Israel, as it has been for decades. The American Left is not, and hasn't really been since the 1960s and 1970s.

In 1948, the Democratic Party lobbied hard for the partition because the Republicans were making an issue of it and they feared losing Jewish support. Now, basically, they're reneging on a moral principle.

They're not reneging on it at all. Some of their supporters disagree with a decision the party made fifty years ago; how is that somehow wrong?

I undertand, but it gets people angry at the wrong things. It promotes a narrow view of the situation. It discourages us from thinking about it; presenting us instead with a tidy little bit of subtle anticapitalism to capture young voters. As a political mechanism it is no doubt accomplishing its purpose, I'm sure;

It isn't, it's a stupid slogan. Not because its content is stupid intellectually, though it may be, but simply because it doesn't appeal to anybody who doesn't already agree with it. Anybody who thinks the Iraq War was for oil is already against it. The people who need to be convinced likely dismiss such notions as more "unbridled idiocy," to borrow your term.

The issues that are making Bush lose the public on the war are his obvious incompetence, his incapability to prevent the country from collapsing into civil war, continuing expenditures, and troop casualties. Not any concern about imperialism, however accurate.

but it's still erroneous and it still pisses me off.

It is probably a good thing to be pissed off by propaganda, as long as you aren't in charge of distributing it.

However poor a slogan "no blood for oil" might be, "no blood for the sake of fulfilling the strategic interests in the United States in the Middle East as it attempts to protect its allies, gain additional control over resources, avert Chinese and Russian penetration, and expand its control over the region through the installation of a puppet government to replace a hostile one" is far worse.

There is no liberal "party line."

You seem to be talking to people who are basically in the political middle of the Democratic Party; "No Blood for Oil", pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-welfare, pro-"fair trade", etc., but not really attracted to the radical critiques of US society and foreign policy. To people like this, the US government is basically good, except when Republicans come into power, at which point it becomes simply diabolical.

The ones I'm talking about are, to reuse an earlier reference, the ones who attend ANSWER rallies and don't tone out the speeches. They are substantially to the left of the group I mentioned above, recognize that the Democrats are involved in the foreign policy mess as well as the Republicans, and don't hesitate to harshly criticize Israel, despite the near-universal support for that state amount the Democratic Party leadershop.
In that case it probably has everything to do with where I live [Columbus, Ohio] and the fact that most liberals I speak to are still relatively new to politics and are in an intellectually formative period. I can't really say as I've met anyone around here quite as you describe in your second paragraph.

The Democrats are not at all synonymous American Left. The American Left is well to the left of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is staunchly supportive of Israel, as it has been for decades. The American Left is not, and hasn't really been since the 1960s and 1970s.
I used the term because the Democratic Party of 1948 isn't necessarily the Democratic Party of today. It was a generalization meant to encompass both the originators of this policy and their political descendants--who, despite their differences with said originators are still nominally a part of the "left" culture. I understand that Democrats aren't real leftists, and the hardcore lefties will tighten their jaw when someone like me suggests they are. As a political organization, the Democrats in America today are still a lot further to the right than most political entities worldwide.

They're not reneging on it at all. Some of their supporters disagree with a decision the party made fifty years ago; how is that somehow wrong?
It's not wrong to regret past mistakes, but it is politically dangerous. Regardless of how well-founded their complaints may be, it's going to look like they're going back on it. I was just watching Bill O'Reilly on David Letterman and O'Reilly admitted that the government was "wrong about WMDs" in Iraq. Observe what this statement has done to GOP credibility. The Republicans will lose votes this year because the WMD hoax has been all but admitted; a mistake I'm sure the Republicans lament. Likewise, the Democrats will lose standing if they admit creating Israel was a mistake.

It isn't, it's a stupid slogan. Not because its content is stupid intellectually, though it may be, but simply because it doesn't appeal to anybody who doesn't already agree with it. Anybody who thinks the Iraq War was for oil is already against it. The people who need to be convinced likely dismiss such notions as more "unbridled idiocy," to borrow your term.
It's a good one, isn't it? :D

The issues that are making Bush lose the public on the war are his obvious incompetence, his incapability to prevent the country from collapsing into civil war, continuing expenditures, and troop casualties. Not any concern about imperialism, however accurate.
"Imperialism" is a bit of a stretch, since we're not administrating said territories ourselves [at least not anymore].

It is probably a good thing to be pissed off by propaganda, as long as you aren't in charge of distributing it.

However poor a slogan "no blood for oil" might be, "no blood for the sake of fulfilling the strategic interests in the United States in the Middle East as it attempts to protect its allies, gain additional control over resources, avert Chinese and Russian penetration, and expand its control over the region through the installation of a puppet government to replace a hostile one" is far worse.
I'd like to see someone try to fit that on a bumper sticker.

she was breaking the law?

when I volunteered in 2004 at the polling place they asked me not to wear my American flag pin, I actually was asked to take it off and put it in my purse because it might affect voting.......even though the little stickers we hand out have a flag on them :confused: I wonder who they thought I was supporting with my little pin?
Is there a "burn the flag" party where you live? You might have appeared biased against them.

At elections here we always have people standing at the entrance to polling stations handing out leaflets trying to get you to vote for them/their candidate. All parties do it.
Not down south we don't.

Fred Phelps


http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r106/ledhed215/fredphelps.jpg



Ignorance of the law is no excuse...she deserved a ticket and I think if it was for a pro Gop message this thread wouldn't exist .

We do. It's called "democracy."
That's the group deciding for everyone. Democracy forces people with diverse opinions to accept a single decision for all. That's hardly us deciding for ourselves.

That's the group deciding for everyone. Democracy forces people with diverse opinions to accept a single decision for all. That's hardly us deciding for ourselves.


In the US we have a democratic republic and a bill of rights thats supposed to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

Among them is also the second ammendment that allows us the means to enforce those rights.;)


It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Winston Churchill

Ignorance is not an excuse, as much as you would like it to be. If you are unfamiliar with the penal code, read it prior to committing an illegal act. The fact that many policemen were hesitant to fine this particular person for her transgressions simply indicates that increased police funding is necessary and/or that the police force is rife with biased liberals.

Oh right, because we expect people to know every single law there is out there. There are way too many laws to count; even most professionals don't know all the laws that go with their own professions. Sure, they know all the high points, but who really knows about these laws, which don't appear to be valid in all states anyway?

And don't go trotting out the "zOMG they're t3h biased librulzz" every time there's even the slightest reservation about going along with your tired agenda. And frankly, it's part of a bigger problem - if there's early voting going on, people need to be made aware of the law because it will affect lots of people. This affects everyone from the "Grand Oil Party" person the "W'08" person. And signs could be put up to alert people of this. We can't expect people to know all these laws off-hand. It's a little like a cop pulling someone over on a highway and telling the person they were speeding when there are no speed limit signs posted. How do we expect people to know what the speed limits are IF WE DON'T TELL THEM? And how can we expect people, en masse, to park at a safe distance from the mall if they have campaign stickers IF WE DON'T TELL THEM? Is it that damn hard to post a sign that says, "If you have a political sticker on your car, please park in the far lot so as to comply with the campaign laws of the State of Kansas." Seriously.

But then again, and I am well aware this borders on ad hominem, but I can't really expect you to go along with the idea that people should be told what the laws are to help them avoid a problem. After all, you seem to expect people to know all the laws the same way you expect minimum-wage employees to retire as millionaires. I guess it makes sense.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r106/ledhed215/fredphelps.jpg



Ignorance of the law is no excuse...she deserved a ticket and I think if it was for a pro Gop message this thread wouldn't exist .

If it had been a pro-GOP sticker, the ticket wouldn't have existed. So in a sense you're right.

That is pretty bad, I could understand it if there was an election on but there wasn't. It also seems that whoever called it in is pretty vindictive as they would have had to know there was a law against it.

I thought this was covered under freedom of speech?
Oh wait, right, Kansas.

Only when there's voting going on, that is. If there's no voting going on, who gives a damn if there's campaigning going on? If the law states "no campaigning within a polling place on Election Day" then it's perfectly reasonable. If it says, "No campaigning in front of a polling place EVER even when there's no voting going on" then it's a dumb law. Most polling places are used for other things when they're not being used for polling places. To tell people that they can't campaign outside a shopping mall on the 363 days a year that people aren't inside voting is inane.

Agreed. Here in NYC most polling places are churches or schools. Next idiotic ticket written: you can't have a religious bumpersticker because it violates the separation of church and state?

I don't see why you can't campaign at a polling place anyway. It's done all the time here. As a matter of fact, I won't vote for someone unless I've spoken to them or their representative and discussed their policies.

I consider campaigning at the polling place a major part of making an informed choice.

If it had been a pro-GOP sticker, the ticket wouldn't have existed. So in a sense you're right.

I thought this was covered under freedom of speech?
Oh wait, right, Kansas.

I mentioned earlier in this thread and I'll mention again - Overland Park, where this took place, is not what one would call especially right-wing territory. On the red-to-blue scale, it would probably rank in as a pale pink, much like the rest of the Kansas City area. I know people hear "Kansas" and think "crazy fundamentalist pig-farmers," but that's really not the case here. Odds are good everyone involved in this besides the single nutter who called in the complaint thought this was just as stupid as most of us do.

If she displayed that near a polling station, I'd assume she was somehow breaking the law. Anyway, it would have been better if the police officer, instead of fining her, merely told her to park her car farther or to park it in another way, so that the "offending" bumper sticker could not be seen... but maybe I'm asking too much...