as predicted .. . i just wonder if the hordes of leftist loons that flooded the streets had any part to play in shifting national opinion so resolutely, a la
chicago 1968.

from the most recent newsweek poll, following the convention's conclusion, there was a 13 point shift overall, from 2 points down, to 11 up (52-41)! awesome. but the best part is that bush also improved across the board in a great many meaningful polling categories. the likeability factor is his to lose.
he owns the whole heart of the country. the libs support is isolated to the four corners, mostly. victory, lads and ladies, is predestined. the empire is safe. bwahaha . ..

Loons...?

Yeah, when your city is UNDER SIEGE you should really just sit tight and smile.

Yeah, the Holy Roman "Empire" thought that they'd rule forever, and we all know what happened and who adopted some of their tenets. Oops, I live in one of the four corners, just like Jeb Bush.

quote:

---

Originally posted by syzygy:
as predicted .. . i just wonder if the hordes of leftist loons that flooded the streets had any part to play in shifting national opinion so resolutely, a la
chicago 1968.

---

For the record, I STRONGLY oppose the Bush adminstration's attacks on our civil liberties, the separation of church and state, and common sense. But many of those gathering to protest in NYC were there only to cause chaos, not to offer any protest at all. However, these new "free speech zones" that have to be created to allow protestors to be shuttled off to back corners of buildings are just another way to silence true political opposition. The most reprehensible thing about Bush and his apologists (Malkin, Coulter, O'Reilly) is the fact that they brand all who disagree with their neo-conservative, ultra-religious gobble-de-gook as traitors to the country. I can't support anarchy for the sake of anarchism (a terrible philosophical position) but those who truly hold and wish to make public a contrary position aren't traitors: they are, in fact, upholding our values. Let them speak, and let their side lose the election because the populace DISAGREES rather than strong-arming dissidents to alleyways.

quote:

---

Originally posted by philosopherEric:
However, these new "free speech zones" that have to be created to allow protestors to be shuttled off to back corners of buildings are just another way to silence true political opposition.

---

I hope you're not suggesting that the "free speech zones" at the RNC were more restrictive than those at the DNC?? The Democrats put all of their protestors in a CAGE down the street and around the corner from the Fleet Center. At least the Republicans allowed protestors to March all over New York with the exception of the area immediately in front of the Garden so as not to prevent access to the building. So who is stifling free speech here? I would say the Democrats. But you'll never hear about that from 90% of today's media.

And you're calling Bill O'Reilly a neo-con??? You've obviously never watched his show. He's one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq War. To think you'd put in into the category with Fieth, Wermser, Worlfowitz, Perle, and the other "neo-cons" is just ignorant.

And Malkin & Coulter are just extreme right conservatives, not neo-cons. That is, unless you consider everyone to your right a "neocon" because it rolls of the tongue nicely, sort of like "neo-nazi"....

philospher eric:

your hysterics are noted.

those 'free speech zones' were a strategic accomodation the city of new york created based on their own research into the nefarious activities planned by people who don't care for the niceties of polite disagreement, caring only to destroy the civility of any contrary political gathering and sowing as much chaos as possible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SparkleMotion:

I hope you're not suggesting that the "free speech zones" at the RNC were more restrictive than those at the DNC?? The Democrats put all of their protestors in a CAGE down the street and around the corner from the Fleet Center. At least the Republicans allowed protestors to March all over New York with the exception of the area immediately in front of the Garden so as not to prevent access to the building. So who is stifling free speech here? I would say the Democrats. But you'll never hear about that from 90% of today's media.

And you're calling Bill O'Reilly a neo-con??? You've obviously never watched his show. He's one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq War. To think you'd put in into the category with Fieth, Wermser, Worlfowitz, Perle, and the other "neo-cons" is just ignorant.

And Malkin & Coulter are just extreme right conservatives, not neo-cons. That is, unless you consider everyone to your right a "neocon" because it rolls of the tongue nicely, sort of like "neo-nazi"....

---

Funny, I don't FEEL hysterical...but I spent some time carefully crafting a reply, but then the Forums server went down and I lost all of it. Oh well.

Nutshell replies:

1. I didn’t mean to imply that only the RNC was installing free speech zones. What’s good for the goose, right? I saw footage of the DNC’s zones and they looked to me very similar to those at the RNC. I didn’t see the “cages” but I watched the coverage of both conventions fleetingly. Both setups seemed to be an attempt to discourage protestors. We’ll have the same sort of setup here at Wash U when the debate occurs on our campus: each organization gets a roped-off section on the football field. Kinda like a political zoo.
2. My inclusion of O’Reilly was errant. I slipped him in only based on my distaste for him, personally. He has taken on the Bush administration on some issues, and he did offer an apology for misleading his viewers on WMD’s in Iraq. He’s been as critical of some Republican “faces” (including, fairly recently, Mary Matalin) as he has been of Hilary Clinton, et al. I do, in fact, watch him only sporadically because I find his method of argumentation (shouting over people) to be incredibly unproductive and annoying. (Or, to put my reply to you in O’Reilly language: “SHUT UP! I don’t care what you think!!!”) But I shouldn’t have lumped him in as an apologist, simpliciter.
3. I didn’t call Malkin and Coulter neo-cons. I said they were APOLOGISTS for the Bush administration, which contains its fair share of neo-cons. I recognize the difference.
4. I didn’t imply that neo-con equals neo-nazi. Others have been doing that for some time. My own distaste for the neo-con position aside, simply calling them neo-nazis would be a true ad hominem and wasn’t what I was after.
5. My overall point was supposed to be about free speech. My own feelings about Bush and his cronies were supposed to be incidental. But I remain concerned about the encroachment on our civil liberties, whether it comes from the left of me or the right of me. I see the Patriot Act and the proposed changes to the FCC’s power over “indecency” as evidence of the Bush administration’s attack on those liberties, but I would be just as opposed if it was coming from left-liberals.

I just saw footage of Kerry criticizing Bush. I didn’t think the Democrats could find a less likable candidate than Gore, but I was wrong. Kerry’s a giant dud.

Oh come on. Bush is a liar, everything he says is a lie. Anyways, he has an iq of 91 after many tests. He led us into extreme debt and is destroying the world and unity (does not listen to united nations) I have to say one thing, he is lying and he is making a good job of it, convincing americans to oppose Kerry. I cannot believe what our country and socity has come to today. Around the world, we are a disgrace, because of Bush.

quote:

---

Originally posted by philosopherEric:



Nutshell replies:

1. I didn’t mean to imply that only the RNC was installing free speech zones. What’s good for the goose, right? I saw footage of the DNC’s zones and they looked to me very similar to those at the RNC. I didn’t see the “cages” but I watched the coverage of both conventions fleetingly. Both setups seemed to be an attempt to discourage protestors. We’ll have the same sort of setup here at Wash U when the debate occurs on our campus: each organization gets a roped-off section on the football field. Kinda like a political zoo.
2. My inclusion of O’Reilly was errant. I slipped him in only based on my distaste for him, personally. He has taken on the Bush administration on some issues, and he did offer an apology for misleading his viewers on WMD’s in Iraq. He’s been as critical of some Republican “faces” (including, fairly recently, Mary Matalin) as he has been of Hilary Clinton, et al. I do, in fact, watch him only sporadically because I find his method of argumentation (shouting over people) to be incredibly unproductive and annoying. (Or, to put my reply to you in O’Reilly language: “SHUT UP! I don’t care what you think!!!”) But I shouldn’t have lumped him in as an apologist, simpliciter.
3. I didn’t call Malkin and Coulter neo-cons. I said they were APOLOGISTS for the Bush administration, which contains its fair share of neo-cons. I recognize the difference.
4. I didn’t imply that neo-con equals neo-nazi. Others have been doing that for some time. My own distaste for the neo-con position aside, simply calling them neo-nazis would be a true ad hominem and wasn’t what I was after.
5. My overall point was supposed to be about free speech. My own feelings about Bush and his cronies were supposed to be incidental. But I remain concerned about the encroachment on our civil liberties, whether it comes from the left of me or the right of me. I see the Patriot Act and the proposed changes to the FCC’s power over “indecency” as evidence of the Bush administration’s attack on those liberties, but I would be just as opposed if it was coming from left-liberals.

I just saw footage of Kerry criticizing Bush. I didn’t think the Democrats could find a less likable candidate than Gore, but I was wrong. Kerry’s a giant dud.

---

That was a very even-handed response to my response. I went a little overboard with my neo-nazi comment, and I apologize for that. As for know-it-all's suggestion that Bush is dumb?? Much like the desperate shots that leftists made against Reagan back in the day as well. "He's dumb!"

Reagan wasn't dumb. He was suffering from the onset of Alzheimer's, until it hit him full-on, long before the Iron-Contra hearings, and I've seen almost every Reagan film and all the Death Valley Days, so I'm not trying to be cruel or flippant, just accurate. (My mom got what seemed to be Alzheimer's in late 1984, although that wasn't a very-widely-known disease at the time.) Bush has to come up with a different excuse.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

I can't say too much about this topic because I feel so incredibly distraught about where this country looks like it's headed. (Where to begin? Iraq, Patriot Act, the environment, women's rights, media conglomeration, tax cuts for billionaires, purging voter roles of African-Americans in Florida?) I just wanted to second (and third) just about everything PhilosopherEric said. Thanks for your cogent comments.

Hot local news:

The debate here at Wash U may be off. Bush advisers are concerned with the "town hall" format, particularly citing efforts of partisans to "sneak in" as undecided voters for the town hall meeting.

Simple solution: have partisans from BOTH SIDES sneak in, duh!!!!

Postscript: this is not the first debate cancellation story from WU. Clinton actually DID cancel one of the debates scheduled for here in 1996, citing fairness, of all things. His people claimed that, since WU had had a Bush/Clinton debate in 1992, it was only fair that other cities get a shot at one. Problem was, they didn't give the "lost" debate to another city: it just didn't happen at all. Clinton's people cited, after the fact, a desire NOT to lose points in the polls to Dole by facing him in too many debates. I know it's gamesmanship, but it's pretty weak. If you're gonna be a chicken, 'fess up: I don't want to face my opponent because I don't want to risk screwing up my large lead in the polls (Clinton) or I don't feel comfortable fielding questions on my feet (Bush).

WU folks seem to think a concession may be made to keep the debate. I'm not sure which partisans are getting in: I know almost NOBODY on campus who has a ticket. The largest blocks of tickets that are out there seem to be in the hands of the frats, strangely enough. I'd like to see Bush and Kerry in a drinking contest: no debate, just a "last man standing" drink off!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: philosopherEric,

quote:

---

Originally posted by philosopherEric:
Hot local news:

The debate here at Wash U may be off. Bush advisers are concerned with the "town hall" format, particularly citing efforts of partisans to "sneak in" as undecided voters for the town hall meeting.

---

According to the latest info, the debate is ON but the format is still TBA. Bush's people still want to do something other than a town hall meeting. Already, campus warning about parking and loitering are being given. If I don't get a ticket to the debate itself, I'll be NOWHERE NEAR this place on October 8th. I'm afraid of getting tossed into the St. Louis equivalent of Pier 57 for having an opinion...and voicing it in the wrong place. A sad state of affairs.

Ok...lets just tell it like it is: (here I go offending people again)

If you have STRONG morals and ethics, you vote Republican. Granted, I don't agree with everything the Republicans do or everything the Bush administration has done. But there are core beliefs, like...oh...I don't know...LIFE IS SACRED that I have to vote for. Let's call it like it is. They aren't pro choice, they are anti-life. If any one of you actually saw how a partial-birth abortion was performed, you would probably puke on the spot. I know I almost did. Look it up yourself, But I warn you, it's not any different that what the mindless, animalistic terrorists just did to two of our citizens in Iraq.

And you think we are losing our civil liberties? I've got news for you...TERRORISTS WERE LIVING IN OUR COUNTRY AND DECIDED TO FLY A COUPLES PLANES INTO SOME BUILDING AND KILL A FEW THOUSAND PEOPLE!!!! I am prepared to let the government do what it needs to do so more people don't die.

The separation of church and state? Do you really, honestly think that our forefathers meant what the liberals are saying they meant? of course not. They meant there was to be no state sponsored religions (i.e. former soviet union) where you get killed if you worship a certain way.

And the ironic truth of the matter of the democratic party being the party of the Blacks? It's so sad. It's really the democrats that are racist when it comes to what they are doing to the African American population. They want to "help" them. In other words, they tell them, "Shhh, be quiet. Don't worry. We will give you money for the rest of your life so you can sit on your couch and do nothing because you are black and you won't amount to anything anyway." Or, look at all the successful black Republicans. Why do you think they vote Republican? They realized it was the Conservative party that actually wanted to help them. That told them, hey, get off your butt, and do something with your life. You are just as capable as everyone else on this planet. But the Democrats want to keep this a secret for as long as they can. They have duped nearly the entire Black population.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JackietheBlade,

quote:

---

Originally posted by philosopherEric:
According to the latest info, the debate is ON but the format is still TBA. Bush's people still want to do something other than a town hall meeting. Already, campus warning about parking and loitering are being given. If I don't get a ticket to the debate itself, I'll be NOWHERE NEAR this place on October 8th. I'm afraid of getting tossed into the St. Louis equivalent of Pier 57 for having an opinion...and voicing it in the wrong place. A sad state of affairs.

---

pE, is the debate location going to be the gymnasium north of Francis Field again?

We had left St. Louis over a year before the debate last election. We lived, however, on Tulane in U. City, so I expect we would have probably hunkered down ourselves even then.

Now Playing: "Hercules" Paul Weller Studio 150 (V2) <-- Oh, and a very, very good call, pE. The cover of "All Along The Watchtower" is wanting in my opinion, but the rest of the album is great. Where DID he get so much soul?!!

And you think we are losing our civil liberties? I've got news for you...TERRORISTS WERE LIVING IN OUR COUNTRY AND DECIDED TO FLY A COUPLES PLANES INTO SOME BUILDING AND KILL A FEW THOUSAND PEOPLE!!!! I am prepared to let the government do what it needs to do so more people don't die.

~JackietheBlade


My response is THEN WHY ARENT WE DOING SOMETHING SO MORE PEOPLE WONT DIE!!!! I mean, dont hide whats being shoved right in front of your face our plan of action or lack thereof is just doubling the amount of human casualties.

More American casualties last month in Iraq than in any other month so far in the occupation. Where is Osama Bin Laden? The press hardly even covers Afghanistan any more, if the current administration in Washington really wanted to find Osama, they would send troops, not bombs. Unfortunately, dropping bombs puts money in the pockets of the U.S. weapons developers who are so closely tied to the White House, so I don't see that tactic ending any time soon, or at least until they start up another draft. The 9-11 commission put the blame on the Bush administration, seemed like the Democrats were doing a great job before that. Your economy is not doing well, and why would you expect it to, considering Bush's failings at almost every position he held before entering politics. Any Texas Rangers fans? What about Dick Cheney's lovely Haliburton ties? Where is the outrage over that conflict of interest? Oh, right, not as interesting as Clinton's blowjob. How about invading Iran next? Anyone think that is a good idea? Weren't relationships improving and progress being made with North Korea under the Clinton administration? That's right, they were, and how are those relations now? What has Bush done that merits his being reelected? I can understand voting Republican if you are a Christian, pro-life advocate, or are in a lofty tax bracket, but anyone else?! Why?

P.S.-Jackie, STRONG morals and ethics exist in all religions and political affiliations, not just Christians and Republicans. I have my own set of STRONG morals and ethics that I'm sure are quite different from yours, and I would not imply that yours are weak due to our differences.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JackietheBlade:
Ok...lets just tell it like it is: (here I go offending people again)

If you have STRONG morals and ethics, you vote Republican. Granted, I don't agree with everything the Republicans do or everything the Bush administration has done. But there are core beliefs, like...oh...I don't know...LIFE IS SACRED that I have to vote for. Let's call it like it is. They aren't pro choice, they are anti-life. If any one of you actually saw how a partial-birth abortion was performed, you would probably puke on the spot. I know I almost did.

---

You've said alot here, jackietheblade, and I don't have time to reply to all of it, but here's a few thoughts:

To claim that anyone with STRONG morals and ethics votes Republican is to beg the question about what morals and ethics are. It's a terrible argument that would get a C or worse in any intro to ethics class. Personally, clinging to a party line to me seems quite thoughtless...if you want to vote based on what the party tells you, that's your choice. I'd rather make up my own mind. But I don't think that's really what you were saying...

You attempt to make a different point about abortion, which might be what you mean by "strong morals and ethics" but I'm still wary of your claim on its own. It's a really strong and callous overstatement to say that people who are pro-choice are really "proabortion" or "anti-life". I'd be shocked to find more than a small fraction of people who are pro-choice who would be willing to have an abortion themselves. Studies done on this in the late 80's indicated that roughly 75% of pro-choice females would not be likely to have an abortion themselves. That doesn't seem to be pro-death to me. I'm pro-choice and I'd prefer to live in a world where abortions weren't needed...if that's "anti-life", you've got me.

As for partial-birth abortion, I admit it's a pretty gruesome practice and I don't think its the best usage of pro-choice arguments. But almost nobody (except maybe a religious extremist) would deny that performing one to save the life of the mother would be appropriate, so I'm not sure what clear line can be drawn. There are a LOT of gruesome medical practices that we do everyday that would turn your stomach...is THAT your critieria? The "ick" factor?

Every semester I teach bioethics, and every semester I face the same arguments that you've offered. As far as I can see it, you have to make one of two strong claims if you want to be pro-life/anti-abortion:

1. The fetus at any point after fertilization is a person and all persons are to be protected (which is an open scientific question, and raises other questions about the death penalty, war, and self-defense)

2. We should protect all fertilized zygotes (in which case you would also be claiming that using the birth control pill is immoral)

I'm not willing to accept either.

A postscript: my own views on abortion don't factor in to how I teach undergrad bioethics courses. I teach seminal philosophical pieces, both pro-choice and pro-life, and my students personal views don't affect their grades...only their arguments and their ability to get their ideas across. My own view never makes it onto the table...and I usually have as many people making A's whose views I personally disagree with as those who I do agree with.

For the record, though, I'm not offended by your speil, JackietheBlade. I appreciate your candor and you state your point pretty clearly, which many people don't do these days. This whole discussion is all part of a bigger discourse that is valuable on its own. We may have to agree to disagree, in the end, about more than a few points.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: philosopherEric,

Hey, I hope this doesn't make anybody think less of me, but wow, I missed a lot, and I have, I hope, as little as possible to add to this. Please don't take this as actual religious dogma, but just common sense thoughts about CHRISTianity and the United States of America.

Our country may have felt it was "called" by God to overthrow tyranny and set up a free country, but since they gutted the strongest (most-Godlike) parts of their Declaration and Constitution, the actual majority of people (some couldn't even be called citizens) were left WAY out in the cold. There's more to say about that, but if anybody cares, have at it.

If any of the following makes you uncomfortable, don't think of it as religion, but history and ethics. Jesus said to forgive everyone at least 490 times, but what he meant was ad infinitum. He also said that if you were injured or abused, to turn the other cheek. Now, we mere mortals can't imagine not defending ourselves or seeking revenge, but if you trust in The Prince of Peace, then you should follow his example and believe that he will resolve ALL problems (as he promised.) If you don't believe Him, then go ahead and sharpen your swords and spears and do battle against your heathen, inhuman brothers and sisters, but don't be surprised if somebody tells you at some point, "I never knew you."

I love everybody here. I try to turn the other cheek but often get pissed. I wish I could control myself. This forum helps me to do that, and I'm thankful to find such a cross-section of people to call friends. (I love you especially, Jackie.) Now, I hope this doesn't cause anyone to throw up. Peace, and especially, later, Gators. REALLY shut up, mark!!!

Quick note on the numbers. Yes, we're at about 1000 deaths in the Iraqi theater, but in this current "war", we need to include the 3000 that died on 9/11, and those that died in Afghanistan as well. So in the current "war on terror", if you will, we're at around 4,000 dead.

Many in the anti-war contingent, and the Anti-America (or perhaps more specifically anti-Bush) camp seem so "shocked" that we have 1,000 dead in the Iraqi theater. Many in this same camp before the war, including the New York Times predicted 10,000 dead in the Battle of Baghdad. So 1,000 dead over a year later is really not that extreme compared to some estimates, or compared to 58,000 dead in Vietnam (which the left seems to be comparing Iraq to on a daily basis), and 19,000 during a single 40-day battle in WWII (Battle of the bulge). So 1,000 people sacrificed their lives for the freedom of the world against the animals - the terrorists. Be honest with yourselves - that is a VERY SMALL NUMBER.

However! Every single one of those lives matters, and I mourn each and every one of them. They are heroes. We should do everything we can to make their surviving families as comfortable as possible. Survivor benefits should be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, free educations for kids, etc.

One final point. Of course the violence is getting worse. Why? We're approaching 2 elections. In America and Iraq. If each of those elections goes off without a hitch, the terrorists are out of business. They NEED tyrannical govts. to live, thrive, and survive. Organized goverments by and for the people extinguish terror through law and order. NEWS TO THE TERRORISTS: America is not Spain. We will never bow down to your cowardice. And why?? Because WE ARE SMARTER THAN YOU!

Quick theory as to why Americans are smarter than fundamental muslims: We are raised by two parents who are (or can be) educated. Fundamental Muslims are raised by mothers who are forbidden to get educations. Children pick up things from both parents from day 1. Intelligent mothers AND fathers in the united states educate their kids in conjunction with our schools. By stifling that light in women, the conservative muslims shut down that possibility.

We use that developed intelligence (from our mothers!!!!) to find ways to stamp out those who seek to kill us. And the gloves have yet to truly come off. Try another 9/11 or something like that and don't think we'll hestitate to follow you and your RPGs into your sacred Mosques.

ENOUGH! more later....