2009-7-28 02:31:00
[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog, and were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey on The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group prior to being archived here.]
JJ:
Mr. Ringsletter has written one of the most incorrect and distorted pieces I have read in the Statesman.
First, Cheney has never defended torture. He has defended enhanced interrogation, which he and many others do not define as torture. The current tofu-eating generation think that a mosquito bite is torture.
An Iraqi general named Mowhoush was tortured and died in 2003. This was not approved by Cheney, Bush or the generals and those responsible were charged with murder.
To say Cheney is responsible for this is like saying Obama is responsible for the recent murder army recruiter William Long by the Muslim Abdulhakim Muhammad. Both conclusions are absurd.
Why is it that Cheney wants the full records of the results of enhanced interrogation released and Obama is hiding them from us? Both men know they saved lives.
Obviously Obama does not want them released because they prove Bush and/or Cheney correct.
"ConservoDem" wrote:
"You would support Adolph Hitler if he had an 'R' behind his name. Come to think of it, you just did."
JJ:
Why is it that over 90% of these mindless insults and name calling come from the Left? Do they not have the sense of decency to restrain themselves from this Tourette Syndrome-like compulsion to mindlessly attack with gutter thinking rather than reason?
I take great offence by this low brow statement of yours because I have actually studied Hitler.
Obviously your knowledge of Hitler was derived from sources such as the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos.
Hitler practiced real torture such as tying a persons hands behind his back and then hanging him on a nail on a tree destroying his limbs for life. That sent a message to the neighborhood.
Hitler would never have an "R" after his name because he was a National SOCIALIST! Others though are advocating National Socialism and they are not Republicans or Libertarians such as myself.
JJ to Grandjester:
Bragging about your library and calling me ignorant is no substitute for knowledge and reason.
The fact remains that Hitler was a proud National SOCIALIST and controlled business as a social mechanism similar to how we are taking control of GM [General Motors] and other companies, and giving orders.
"ConservoDem":
"BTW, Stalin claimed to be a COMMUNIST, but he, too, was a fascist. Fascists choose whichever party they believe will launch their career - it has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with POWER as Dickey Cheney would gladly tell you."
JJ:
Stalin never considered himself a Fascist. Obviously a fascists to you is anyone you disagree with. Communists do not consider themselves fascists though they do have some socialist ideals in common.
"ConservoDem":
"BTW, you DID know that the neo-con movement of your beloved Cheney evolved from a group of Marxists, didn't you?"
JJ:
I do not pay attention to anyone who calls himself a neocon nor to the hearsay connected to them.
"Grandjester" wrote:
"The Nazi's were ultra nationalists, opposed to liberals, communists and Jews."
JJ:
This is one of the few things you say that is correct but why are you stating the obvious that I agree with?
I've probably read more than you about Nazi Germany. Instead of bragging give me something that proves me wrong.
"Grandjester" (GJ):
"I have given you a taste of my library and you discounted it."
JJ:
I did not discount it. Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is one of my favorite books. What I did discount is your argument that you are right just because you've read books. You need to quit skimming my posts.
GJ:
"You are trying to claim that Hitler was a Socialist, which is patently untrue."
JJ:
Hitler may have been evil but he was not dumb. He said many times he was a socialist. Do you not think he understood the term?
What was it that Speer or Shirer said you want me to refute? I can't think of anything Shirer wrote with which I disagree.
What is your definition of socialism anyway? Sounds esoteric.
"A State can be built only on a social foundation."
-- Adolf Hitler
"ConservoDem" wrote:
"You pay no attention to Cheney and Rumsfeld. That seems like a bald faced lie, but I'm sure you can explain it to your own satisfaction."
JJ:
Cheney and Rumsfeld have never called themselves neocons that I know of.
"ConservoDem":
"And you claim to be a conservative, when in fact you are just a 'conservative.'"
JJ:
Actually, I claim to be more liberal than conservative. I have said many times here I am a LIBERtarian.
GJ sounds like no one can use the word socialism around you unless they are referring to some state that is 100% pure according to your definition.
Tell me of a government past or present that fits into your definition of socialism.
"ConservoDem" wrote:
"Very funny. A 'conservative' on steroids calling himself a liberal. IMHO, 'libertarian' is code for anarchist."
JJ:
As liberal is correctly defined I am more liberal than you. For instance, I am not fanatical about CONSERVing every bush and tree, but am progressive and liberal about putting them to good use with the possibility of actually improving on nature.
Libertarians believe in the course of maximum freedom and anarchy does not bring freedom.
Neocon is a term invented by the Left and few conservatives identify with the label. I do not know what one is though I have heard the term a thousand times. I haven't found anyone who says he is one.
Hitler was an odd combination of liberal and conservative ideals. To label him all one or the other is only useful if you want to insult someone.
JJ:
Well GJ, I figured from your nebulous definition that you could not name one socialist government in the history of the world.
If we want to be purest then there has never been a capitalistic state either.
I'd go along with Merriam Webster which defines it as:
I'd say that the Amish are pretty close to pure socialism as they have a "collective [...] ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." The old Soviet Union also fits this definition.
Now your private definition may not have existed but the dictionary definition of socialism is fairly prevalent.
"ConservoDem" wrote:
"Every major change in atmospheric greenhouse gasses has been accompanied by a change in global climate."
JJ:
Wrong!
As usual you have the wrong facts.
Between 1940-1976 after we really started putting carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere we had global cooling and not global warming as the IPCC models would project. The global cooling got so bad that many scientists were predicting an ice age and the first Earth day had people projecting devastation from global cooling.
The 2001 IPCC report predicted a sea level rise of somewhere between 4 and 35.4 inches by the end of the century. Then in 2007 the fourth report predicted 7-23 inches. Then to top it off the non-scientist Al Gore predicted up to 20 feet.
Does this sound like guesswork or what?
In 2001 the prediction of sea level rise was between 4 and 35.4 inches, a variance of almost a thousand percent!
This is the science of bureaucrats -- not real scientists motivated by truth.
JJ:
Clarification:
I assumed that by change in climate you were saying that there has been an increase of global warming. The fact is that there has always been a change in climate on a daily and yearly basis since the beginning of the earth. So saying there is a change in climate is meaningless.
Global warming, however, has not always followed the increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) as noted by the cooling period I just mentioned.
On the other hand, as a rule more carbon dioxide (CO2) is released following a warming period than the other way around as Al Gore mistakenly claimed.
"Grandjester" wrote:
"A bit off this topic, but I was doing some reading today, and it hit me where you get your wacky ideas about Hitler and the Nazi's, you have been reading Sidney and Lucianne Goldberg's little boy Jonah, haven't you?"
JJ:
You make it sound like reading a book is a crime. His book "Liberal Fascism" was a great book but was more about Mussolini's Fascism than Hitler.
I haven't gotten any ideas I have yet expressed from him but he does give some little known historical data from the Woodrow Wilson era.
Have you read it all the way through?
Anything you find that is factually incorrect?
JJ:
(Commenting on a letter stating how rude people are.)
I have found that most people in this area are pretty decent people who will help others in time of need and all my neighbors in Boise have been friendly over the years. I'm glad they are not overly friendly for I am not looking for a new best friend.
My theory is this:
When times are good 90% of the people are friendly, helpful and easy to get along with.
9% are downright annoying and 1% are dangerous.
However when times are tough and circumstances trying 90% are not to be trusted for they will put self first. 9% will be true friends in very difficult circumstances and 1% can be depended upon even when great sacrifice to themselves is required.
-- End Of Part One --
Go To:
Next article in series: Local Posts #25, Part Two
Previous article in series: Local Posts #24
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved