Because FEMA has been doing such a bang-up job since it was merged with the Department of the Homeland.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Yes, I do live in Missouri.

We are never guaranteed success in that with which we protest. But protest in the face of injustice is still crucial, especially to the ones who are suffering.

This is a tactical response to a strategic question. It gets temporary results and makes us feel good, but it invigorates the opposition and creates more blowback than forward gain.

Until that ceases to be true, other options need to be tried.

Fighting the opposition is more important than torture and murder.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Someone has a spelling problem.

I'll take the heat for spelling rather than the more likely too quick on the post and too lazy to fix it.

I hope everyone had fun though.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Because FEMA has been doing such a bang-up job since it was merged with the Department of the Homeland.

No. The snarky point of departure was the merge with the Bush administration. FEMA actually works pretty well now.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Fighting the opposition is more important than torture and murder.

Yes, when that particular opposition will guarantee more torture and murder if it wins. And destruction of the environment is the worst murder and torture.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is a tactical response to a strategic question. It gets temporary results and makes us feel good, but it invigorates the opposition and creates more blowback than forward gain.

Until that ceases to be true, other options need to be tried.

I would say, other options also.

Protest has been effective in many cases. A wedge had to be thrown in the America right or wrong mentality in the 60s. Folks like JPT resent it terribly; but at least now, questioning your country is not necessarily taboo, and for a while there was even an anti-war "syndrome."

On the other hand, it is true that you can count on many Americans to resist any change, brought about by ANY means, regardless how good it really is for them, because this is an inherently reactionary country. The Tea Party proved that. So what do we do, just allow the reactionaries to continue to rule uncontested? I say no.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Except that Chris Christie is only a +50-something

He is certainly a poster boy for Gen X, although a Joneser.

He is not 50-something; just 50.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

He is certainly a poster boy for Gen X, although a Joneser.

He is not 50-something; just 50.

Fifty and some days. Certainly not a sixty-something...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is a tactical response to a strategic question. It gets temporary results and makes us feel good, but it invigorates the opposition and creates more blowback than forward gain.

Until that ceases to be true, other options need to be tried.

"Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor." Nelson Mandela

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Fifty and some days. Certainly not a sixty-something...

Yes indeed. And I still want him on our side politically.

Originally Posted by Weave

According to Gallup, Romney leads Obama with early voters 52-45%

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ting-advantage

According to newsmax, Obama leads by even more. Believe whom you choose on that, I guess.

The single most important issue of our times is to stop the increasing cycle of violence committed by the government against human beings. All other issues are merely distractions laid out to preoccupy.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

The single most important issue of our times is to stop the increasing cycle of violence committed by the government against human beings. All other issues are merely distractions laid out to preoccupy.

No, although war and peace I would agree is a major issue; as I keep pointing out, destruction of our environment, and policies that promote inequality, are also deadly dangerous to human beings and other living things.

If you vote Republican neo-cons like Romney into office, you will get more government violence, just as you got with other Republicans in office. Reagan got marines killed for no reason in Lebanon, and started and supported covert terrorist wars in Latin America. Bush I carried on a brutal and unnecessary war against Iraq. His son started that war again for no reason, and got hundreds of thousands killed in it. He neglected the terrorist threat, resulting in 9-11. He refused to commit troops to the war he declared against the people who attacked us, thus dragging out both of his wars beyond his term.

Contrast that with Democrats' record since the peace movement began. Carter "waged peace" and not war, and brought the Camp David Accords. He started no wars. Clinton did not either; his foreign policy was very successful. In his main military action in the Balkans, not a single US life was lost, and a genocide was stopped. Obama has not started any wars. He is winding them down. He has been aggressive in fighting terrorism, embracing too many anti-terrorism policies that kill people and threaten our rights. But at least he is hitting the right target, and these actions are decreasing.

You decide. Which do you want? The modern party of mostly-peace, or the modern party of mostly-war? Or a third party of greater peace, but which can't win? Decide and vote accordingly on Nov.6. End of campaign speech.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Because FEMA has been doing such a bang-up job since it was merged with the Department of the Homeland.

The right thinks FEMA is incompetent yet at the same time thinks it has the power to put them all in concentration camps?

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Fighting the opposition is more important than torture and murder.

To a distressingly large number of people, that seems to be the case. The really sad part is, the bulk of 'opposition' they aim to fight isn't generally opposed to them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, although war and peace I would agree is a major issue; as I keep pointing out, destruction of our environment, and policies that promote inequality, are also deadly dangerous to human beings and other living things.

If you vote Republican neo-cons like Romney into office, you will get more government violence, just as you got with other Republicans in office. Reagan got marines killed for no reason in Lebanon, and started and supported covert terrorist wars in Latin America. Bush I carried on a brutal and unnecessary war against Iraq. His son started that war again for no reason, and got hundreds of thousands killed in it. He neglected the terrorist threat, resulting in 9-11. He refused to commit troops to the war he declared against the people who attacked us, thus dragging out both of his wars beyond his term.

Contrast that with Democrats' record since the peace movement began. Carter "waged peace" and not war, and brought the Camp David Accords. He started no wars. Clinton did not either; his foreign policy was very successful. In his main military action in the Balkans, not a single US life was lost, and a genocide was stopped. Obama has not started any wars. He is winding them down. He has been aggressive in fighting terrorism, embracing too many anti-terrorism policies that kill people and threaten our rights. But at least he is hitting the right target, and these actions are decreasing.

You decide. Which do you want? The modern party of mostly-peace, or the modern party of mostly-war? Or a third party of greater peace, but which can't win? Decide and vote accordingly on Nov.6. End of campaign speech.

My, oh my, how we turn a blind eye to the death and destruction led by some Democratic administrations.

President Bush led the invasion, but president Clinton laid the groundwork with the sanctions and with the previous bombing of Iraq. The U.N. sanctions, for example ... led to the deaths of more than a half a million children, not to mention more than a million Iraqis.

Those innocent children died horrible deaths. Most died from dysentery because our country would not allow equipment for water purifiers that they most desperately needed. We stopped life sustaining medicine from entering Iraq that could have saved lives. Then we wonder why there was blow back with an attack on the World Trade Center.

On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton) appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."

This doesn't even take into account the depleted uranium that our bombs left behind that continues to this day to kill and deform children and others there.

Seattleblue is correct when she says everything else is a distraction. While others issues can be important, many of us refuse to connect the dots to endless violence at the hands of the United States and the ramifications for our country's violence toward others.

Now Obama is following a similar path of sanctions on Iran.

Watching the third presidential debate between President Obama and his republican challenger Mitt Romney, I was struck by the sheer indifference of both candidates to the debilitating impact of sanctions on the Iranian people. I found it highly ironic (if not totally disingenuous) that while they both passionately spoke of supporting the democratic aspirations of people across the Middle East, including Iran, there was hardly any trace of concern for tens of millions of ordinary Iranians who are struggling to cope with the absolute terror of spiraling inflation, collapsing currency and unfathomable economic uncertainty due to the crippling sanctions of the West.

Iran is finding it increasingly difficult to access international markets for purchase of even the most basic commodities, from food to clothing and medicine, as it struggles to process multi-billion oil deals in foreign currencies.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

The single most important issue of our times is to stop the increasing cycle of violence committed by the government against human beings. All other issues are merely distractions laid out to preoccupy.

I have to disagree. The amount of actual violence committed by the United States government these days is extremely small compared to what it has committed in the past, and more importantly, it is extremely small compared to the amount of coercion it commits against its own citizens, backed up with the threat of violence.

Furthermore, the highest estimates of total casualties from the Iraq War are about 150,000. The highest estimates of total casualties from the Viet Nam War are about 5 million. The estimate for WWII is about 60 million.

In the last 40 years, 50 million unborn babies have been killed in the United States, an average of about 1.3 million per year. Ten times more babies are aborted in the U.S. every year than the total number of people killed in Iraq over the course of almost ten years.

It's funny how selective people are when it comes to this kind of thing.

I'd like to hear some of the people railing away about Iraq and Afghanistan make the case against U.S. involvement in WWII. After all, the only attack against us was by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Why did we use that as an excuse to go and slaughter millions of people in Europe? How about the Civil War? Somebody want to make the case against the Union?

If not, someone has to explain why the recent, extremely limited violence committed by the U.S. government is so morally reprehensible in comparison to the massive violence it has committed in the past, and also the massive violence it defines as a constitutional right under Roe v. Wade.

I'm not arguing in favor of war. I'm just arguing against selective outrage.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I have to disagree. The amount of actual violence committed by the United States government these days is extremely small compared to what it has committed in the past, and more importantly, it is extremely small compared to the amount of coercion it commits against its own citizens, backed up with the threat of violence.

Furthermore, the highest estimates of total casualties from the Iraq War are about 150,000. The highest estimates of total casualties from the Viet Nam War are about 5 million. The estimate for WWII is about 60 million.

In the last 40 years, 50 million unborn babies have been killed in the United States, an average of about 1.3 million per year. Ten times more babies are aborted in the U.S. every year than the total number of people killed in Iraq over the course of almost ten years.

It's funny how selective people are when it comes to this kind of thing.

I'd like to hear some of the people railing away about Iraq and Afghanistan make the case against U.S. involvement in WWII. After all, the only attack against us was by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Why did we use that as an excuse to go and slaughter millions of people in Europe? How about the Civil War? Somebody want to make the case against the Union?

If not, someone has to explain why the recent, extremely limited violence committed by the U.S. government is so morally reprehensible in comparison to the massive violence it has committed in the past, and also the massive violence it defines as a constitutional right under Roe v. Wade.

Here is one of the few times where I am in agreement with you, JPT. The US has done a good job of dialing down the casualties in wars. Zero is much better, but let's give credit, where due.

I will part ways with you on one thing - aborted fetuses are not state-sanctioned deaths, they are the direct choice of the mother (sometimes with the father) to terminate a pregnancy.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Here is one of the few times where I am in agreement with you, JPT. The US has done a good job of dialing down the casualties in wars. Zero is much better, but let's give credit, where due.

I will part ways with you on one thing - aborted fetuses are not state-sanctioned deaths, they are the direct choice of the mother (sometimes with the father) to terminate a pregnancy.

Killing is killing. Either you're against all killing, or you're not.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Killing is killing. Either you're against all killing, or you're not.

(you knew it was coming)

Where do you stand on the death penalty?

It seems we're moving to simply graphics.

Here's one that makes it pretty simple for even the most thickest of skulls.

All one needs to try to remember is that from a Progressive standpoint, this is comparing the worst expectation of Obama with the best you can hope for from Romeny.

See if you can hold that thought just long enough to get through the graphic.



thanks to Tom Tomorrow for the graphic.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Here is one of the few times where I am in agreement with you, JPT. The US has done a good job of dialing down the casualties in wars. Zero is much better, but let's give credit, where due.

Possibly what some of us might consider a dialing down, is actually an under reporting of civilian casualties, not to mention, shadow wars. These wars are going on in the Middle East without much notice. Ask someone in Pakistan if there isn't a war on their country. Now that we can have bombs dropped by remote control, it puts a whole different spin on violence. My personal opinion is that we are not less violent, just more technically savvy with our killing and maiming others.

Another thing to consider is that technology and advanced medicine has kept many alive who most likely would have died in similar forms of violence.

And as I posted above about sanctions; I'm not sure the parents and relatives of the children and loved ones who died from our sanctions would consider us less violent. In the eyes of those who were victims of our sanctions, watching helplessly while thousands of their loved ones die from preventable illness, would most likely consider us most evil in our violence toward them.

Too often we only see what we have been told and shown to see. Violence by our country is hidden most discreetly. And there's a very good reason for that.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'd like to hear some of the people railing away about Iraq and Afghanistan make the case against U.S. involvement in WWII. After all, the only attack against us was by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Why did we use that as an excuse to go and slaughter millions of people in Europe? How about the Civil War? Somebody want to make the case against the Union?

I couldn't make the case against WW2, it is too strong. I think we actually did everything we could to stay out of it while trying to avoid even indirectly helping the aggressors. I will go even further and make the extremely bold claim that the atomic bomb probably saved millions of lives. The conventional firebombing campaign we had over Tokyo and the purges by Japanese forces on the mainland were adding up very quickly, and the choice to go nuclear was probably the fastest way to stop the bleeding on all sides. Estimates of an amphibious invasion expected five million Japanese citizens & soldiers to die, as well as another million American soldiers.

The Civil War? That was pretty awful all around. It was the most horrific loss of American life and it never should have happened. Slavery shouldn't have happened either, but the Union still had legalized slavery even after the Emancipation Proclamation. So I don't buy the simplification that it was all about slavery, and I don't think the large-scale slaughter that occurred was some kind of destined atonement for our nation's original sins. It was more like we screwed up, and those screw-ups just kept compounding until it climaxed in the biggest national screw-up of all.

If not, someone has to explain why the recent, extremely limited violence committed by the U.S. government is so morally reprehensible in comparison to the massive violence it has committed in the past, and also the massive violence it defines as a constitutional right under Roe v. Wade.

Here's the thing: America isn't always right and it isn't always wrong either. Internally, as a people, we can disagree on what is right and wrong and try to work it out.

Personally, I don't even see abortion as relevant, except as a campaign issue. In 30 years - from Reagan to Bush to Bush again - I've never seen the Republicans make a real attempt at changing Roe v. Wade. They talk about it a lot around election season, but for all the presidencies and Congressional majorities and Supreme Court nominations there hasn't been one single coordinated effort to change the status quo.

The government also doesn't force anyone to have an abortion. So if you don't like abortion... don't have one! Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry another guy! But if the issues directly don't apply to you, why stand against anothers' right to be different or to have a different belief system?

Isn't that kind of like someone who has never held a gun deciding whether or not you have a right to own one?

Rights are never about making decisions for other people because you think their choices are wrong. We can only truly be accountable and responsible for ourselves, and that is a theme that reverberates in many religious and secular philosophical traditions.