OT: Chiff & Fipple: Fair & Balanced

lddulcimer · Post by **lddulcimer** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:51 pm

The biggest problem I have with politics in the modern era is that there is no civil discourse anymore. It is all about grandstanding, demonizing and name calling. The media at large, and politicians in particular, portray that we are no longer a nation where the average citizen is a caring person generally working for the common good, despite the fact that we may seriously disagree on how to achieve that common good. Nowadays, if you disagree with someone, you are suddenly unpatriotic, a _____________ (insert your slur here) and people are out to do you serious physical harm, take away your lively hood and shut you up at all costs.

People like Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh are hate mongers who are laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of our peace, progress and freedom. By giving them any credibility we are causing ourselves serious problems.

As for the 10 commandments, they are the foundation of our judicial system, and always have been. I am personally less concerned about the removal of the statue than I am with the fast run our government appears to be making away from the absolutes expressed in those commandments. We have the highest crime rates in the civilized world - at some point we ought to wake up and see that the farther we are moving from those absolutes, the worse things are getting.

I won't comment on the "War on Terror" other than to say that having worked in the media, I know for a fact that very little of the "truth" is ever reported, and the few true things that are reported have major spin put on them. Trusting any media source for the "truth", regardless of its political or religious orientation, is a bad idea. Everyone has an axe to grind and they will do so.

Zubivka · Post by **Zubivka** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 6:05 pm

Thanks, Dale, for you initial post.

If you still have such courts, we still have a hope.

MurphyStout · Post by **MurphyStout** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 6:27 pm

I said you wouldn't agree with me. I just said that you should think. Think, and following things out to their logical conclusion by factoring in history, logic and human nature. Just try it and you might be suprised.

And as far as having my head in the sand. I read, think, and debate more than enough to keep myself informed on just about any issue. But if that's your quick explination and poor excuse for an opossing viewpoint, you have my sympathes. Quite sad really that you have to stoop to such tactics.

madguy wrote:Was your head in the sand when the UN building in Baghdad was bombed, and all the "chciken" countries who wouldn't support the US in attacking Iraq suddenly condemned the cowardly attack?

Did I not say "one of the big generals for the US said the chances of terror have increased since the occupation." It's getting worse as a result of our being there. This shows me you haven't put any thought in to what I've said, so much in fact that you are supporting my own points. Ask yourself again this question? What led the US to attack Iraq? And why weren't the "cowardly" countries ready to go along? Why should they support the US? Why did Dr Kelly kill himself, supposedly?..... draw it out to the logical conclusion.

And if you think the US only starting terrorizing it's citizens in the 60's you're wrong. But of course you knew that.

"The only reason other countries "hate" us (as per you), is because we stand up for the rest of the free world"-madguy. THAT"S not the only reason. Maybe it's not so bad to have your head in the sand... it's better than where yours is! That's the last thing I'll say to you Madguy, just think.

Jim, yes "on we go." "People marching in the streets, etc. protesting our presence isn't so bad, that's what you expect," Exactly! And you're right, there is no way to stabalize Iraq and Afganistan, without stabalizing the rest of the region so lets pray for that.

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 6:40 pm

If I may return briefly to the subject of the
middle east, I've drawn these conclusions.

A two-state solution isn't going to happen.
The only way it would is if the USA forced one,
and we won't, because it's too dangerous
politically for an American adminstration to try.

the demographics suggest that the Palestinian
population inside Israel and in the occupied
territory is growing much faster than the Jewish
population. Time is on the side of the Palestinains,
and they are beginning to realize it.
Increasingly Israel is going to be viewed in
the world as a European colony created
by the UN amid a vast indigenous population who
sooner or later must be able to vote.

If these people vote, there will be no more Jewish
state. The other option will be for Isarel to expel them,
but I think the world won't let that happen; it will
also have to expel its own Palestinain citizens.

Al Qaida and co will be with us indefinitely as this works
its way out. The terrorism genie is out of the bottle;
they know they can hurt us and they will
probably be able to keep operating. The anger
in the Arab world
toward the USA on account of the Israel-Palestinian
problem will keep them funded and staffed.
These people will be attacking us at least until the
Israeli-Palestinian situation is resolved.

This will be principally political terrorism.
One of their chief goals will be to force
us to stop supporting Israel. They think that in
the long term, maybe over decades, they
will succeed. Best

madguy · Post by **madguy** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 6:51 pm

Jim, to me, your insight into the deep problems in the middle-east is very well thought out and researched. I wonder how the entire scenario would work out if we didn't have such a huge Jewish influence here in the US? Of course, we'll never know that, as well as peace will never come about there, either.
Oh well.

~Larry

madguy · Post by **madguy** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 6:54 pm

MurphyStout wrote:I said you wouldn't agree with me. I just said that you should think. Think, and following things out to their logical conclusion by factoring in history, logic and human nature. Just try it and you might be suprised.

And as far as having my head in the sand. I read, think, and debate more than enough to keep myself informed on just about any issue. But if that's your quick explination and poor excuse for an opossing viewpoint, you have my sympathes. Quite sad really that you have to stoop to such tactics.

madguy wrote:Was your head in the sand when the UN building in Baghdad was bombed, and all the "chciken" countries who wouldn't support the US in attacking Iraq suddenly condemned the cowardly attack?
Did I not say "one of the big generals for the US said the chances of terror have increased since the occupation." It's getting worse as a result of our being there. This shows me you haven't put any thought in to what I've said, so much in fact that you are supporting my own points. Ask yourself again this question? What led the US to attack Iraq? And why weren't the "cowardly" countries ready to go along? Why should they support the US? Why did Dr Kelly kill himself, supposedly?..... draw it out to the logical conclusion.

And if you think the US only starting terrorizing it's citizens in the 60's you're wrong. But of course you knew that.

"The only reason other countries "hate" us (as per you), is because we stand up for the rest of the free world"-madguy. THAT"S not the only reason. Maybe it's not so bad to have your head in the sand... it's better than where yours is! That's the last thing I'll say to you Madguy, just think.

Jim, yes "on we go." "People marching in the streets, etc. protesting our presence isn't so bad, that's what you expect," Exactly! And you're right, there is no way to stabalize Iraq and Afganistan, without stabalizing the rest of the region so lets pray for that.

Gee, what a well thought out adult response.

~Larry

Cinead · Post by **Cinead** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:32 pm

Chuck,

Let there be no doubt. I was refering to the God of the Bible, the one which loved us so much he gave His son Jesus to die for our sins. A few famous American judges would agree with the good Mr. Moore's stance. Here are some famous judges' quotes:

"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people." "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form te basis of all of our civil constitutions and laws...All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."
--Noah Webster

Noah Webster served as a soldier in the American Revolutionary War, was was a twelve-term legislator, was the author of Webster's Dictionary, was knowm as "the Schoolmaster of the Nation, and served as a judge.

Here is another:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." --John Jay

The Honorable John Jay was appointed by George Washington as the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He also served as the president of the Continental Congress, president of the Westchester Bible Society in 1818, and president of the American Bible Society in 1821.

Considering the esteemed judicial company Moore is in, he is on the opposite end of the spectrum from the ignorant demagogue you have labeled him. Sorry you feel that way.

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:50 pm

Fellas in the middle east discussion, please let's not bash
each other--especially as we rather seem to agree.
The viability of these discussions depends on civility.

On Judge Moore, there seem to be two issues.
One is the wisdom of Supreme Court rulings
that seem to have gone so far in banishing theistic
religion from American public life. I haven't
read the rulings; yet, as has been observed
in this thread, American public life is full of
theistic religion, in the Pledge of Allegiance, the
opening of Congress with a prayer, on our
currency. It's terribly hard to see a principled way
for the Court to leave some of this in yet exclude
things like Moore's monument. It 's hard to believe
that the framers of the Constitution meant to
do such a thing, e.g. they also wanted a national
Day of Prayer.

The second issue is a state judge refusing to
comply with an order of a federal court,
his appeals exhausted. This is, for me, more scary. Best

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:51 pm

Jim,

I agree with your comments about the Middle East.

However, as you know, I feel that your opinion of Mr. Starr is considerably biased by the fact that his actions were in alignment with your own political views.

For another point of view about Mr. Starr that differs from Professor Stone's:

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/cov_10newsb.html

There was, in fact, a vast right-wing conspiracy against President Clinton. It is convenient for those whose political aims were advanced thereby to pretend there was not.

Best wishes,
Jerry

madguy · Post by **madguy** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:55 pm

Cinead, in case no one has yet informed you, God never wrote a book - the Bible is MANS' interpretation of what they believe a Supremem Being would say or do!

And the "great" justices you make reference to date to antiquated times.

Although I firmly believe the posting of the Ten Commandments in a governmental building has nothing whatsoever to do with the seperation of church and state, I cannot blindly go along with those who insist that the laws of this country were founded on them.

~Larry

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 8:42 pm

Eight of the ten commandments are universal enough. It's the other two, in my opinion, that create problems if they are presented in such a way as to indicate they are being promulgated by the government:

"I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt worship no other gods before me."

"Thou shalt honor the Sabbath and keep it holy."

Or some such words.

Bear in mind, these are commandments, not generalized statements of faith in a higher power. It is not appropriate for the government to post commandments about what one shall believe or how one shall worship.

My grandfather was murdered when my father was fifteen, primarily for the reason that he was Jewish. I grew up in a community where I was under constant, judgmental scrutiny from those who were part of the prevailing religious culture, continually sniffing me over to see if I was right with Jesus. I think many Christians don't realize the degree to which they assume that their way of approaching the mysteries of existance is the only valid way, that this is a Christian country, and this country belongs to Christians more than it belongs to anyone else.

Best wishes,
Jerry

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 8:54 pm

However, as you know, I feel the objectivity of your opinion of Mr. Starr is considerably biased by the fact that his actions were in alignment with your own political views.

Perhaps, and what I said could still be ture.
This is the ad hominem abusive fallacy.
Suppose somebody says out of subjective political bias that
Clinton did nothing to deserve impeachment. It hardly follows
that Clinton did something to deserve impeachment.
Suppose Abraham Lincoln's mother says out of subjective
bias that he's a great man. It hardly follows that he isn't.

As people speaking from subjective bias often speak the
truth, one can't effectively answer what they say by
claiming they're biased. The best one can do that way is change
the subject. We commit the ad hominem abusive fallacy
when somebody disagrees with us and we respond 'You're
just saying that because you're biased.' The fallacy is
that even if we're right, what he said
could still be true. Best

If I may add, I do think it's better not
to make this sort of claim about people who
see things differently from me (e.g. 'Your good opinion of Joe's
integrity is biased by your personal
interests,' etc.)
I don't talk this way myself-- I consider it irrelevenat,
for the reasons I've given; also I
see refraining from ad hominems
as a matter of courteousy.

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 9:20 pm

Jim,

You used a couple of isolated facts (and I'm not sure they're completely factual) to try to make a case that Mr. Starr was neutral in his actions towards President Clinton and that he was only carrying out his duties in an unbiased way.

I believe that, to make your case, you must ignore considerable evidence to the contrary. The net effect is, you appear to be attempting to sway others to your political viewpoint, rather than systematically seeking the truth, wherever that might lead.

If I say I believe you are biased in your view, you accuse me of ad hominim whatchamacallit. You are a trained logician and debater. You have such sophisticated argumentative technique at your disposal, you can "win" pretty much any debate you choose to enter. However, that doesn't make your point of view any truer.

I will not debate you point by point on this stuff. I don't have the time or the stamina. However, I did feel it necessary to point out to anyone who cares to look into the matter, that your opinion is only your opinion, and there is sufficient documentation to support the fact that what you are posting is only one, very partisan, point of view, and not consistent with the facts of the case.

Best wishes,
Jerry

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 9:23 pm

Lots of topics floating around here but I wish to zero in one.

The action in Iraq has been that of a magnet for all kinds of terrorists, it seems, who see an opportunity to kill an American soldier in the confusion of Baghdad or other towns. Notwithstanding Murphy's assessment, the fact that many of the 55 have been caught, is surely neutralizing some of the native resistance of those who were a part of Saddam's regime. But it seems as though the neighboring countries are emptying their metaphoric mental wards with all the dirty nightshirts who can throw a bomb.

So our soldiers are being targets for all kinds of mid-East terrorists in Iraq. I get a lump in my throat about this because our kids are fighting them THERE so we can live free HERE. That is the tie-in with 9/11 to me and I shall never forget the sacrifice they have made for my well-being. No, the NY TImes didn't tell me to think this, I deduced it on my own.

Despite all the terror threat indexes and predicted acts, where have they happened? Not here, thanks to a law enforcement system that so many are complaining about, a military action that so many condemn and an aggressive posture of rising to the fight that the United States has taken.

We all laughed at Spiro Agnew's crack about "nattering nabobs of negativism" but you know, he had a point....During the invasion period, they dusted off David Halberstam, the ever-ponderous "serious" voice of journalistic review for his assessment. He babbled on and on about how the American people were just so.... "unsure and afraid." Which he and other fence-sitters surely were, waiting to see if the action would turn to @#$% and if their ideology would finally be found wanting in dealing with the rise of Islamo-Fascism.

As for Murph's observation about everything turning right.... you know, this has been a social historical dividing line of American culture. Just as so many people are fascinated, for example, by fashion, advertising and other features of WW2 era American culture or the 50s, there is a reason that it looks so different. A very major event, 9/11, forever changed things underneath people's feet. The canny realize it, and see that its a different era. The uncanny fight it, resist it, and seek the familiar comfort zone of their post-Vietnam paradigm or do the best they can with the tools that their education has given them.

If you want to whine about something, whine about the 3000 who died in NY. That is the action that changed people's thinking. Sure, the press did their best to manage and massage us, but people were PERSONALLY affected in many ways and this was an impervious initial response, no matter what interpretation followed. People were flying all those flags for a reason, but the enlightened secular humanists found it all so distressing.

Post by **Dale** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 9:47 pm

lddulcimer wrote:The biggest problem I have with politics in the modern era is that there is no civil discourse anymore. It is all about grandstanding, demonizing and name calling. The media at large, and politicians in particular, portray that we are no longer a nation where the average citizen is a caring person generally working for the common good, despite the fact that we may seriously disagree on how to achieve that common good. Nowadays, if you disagree with someone, you are suddenly unpatriotic, a _____________ (insert your slur here) and people are out to do you serious physical harm, take away your lively hood and shut you up at all costs.

I agree 100%.

Chiff and Fipple Forums

OT: Chiff & Fipple: Fair & Balanced

Esteemed Judges comments