Comments Posted By JustIce
Displaying 11 To 18 Of 18 Comments
HOW SERIOUS IS THE WORLD IN STOPPING AN IRANIAN BOMB?
Folks, there is a World War heading our way. You can dance and nuance around the issues, but Isreal is not going to let Iran have nukes without a premptive strike. It wouldn't surprise me if the Israeli's use nukes on Iran. That would absolutly stop the progress Iran is making towards getting nuclear weapons itself. From an Israeli point of view it would also prevent any Iranian counterstrike. The world opinion will be damned, just as it was with many other issues.
I'm not advocating such a thing. I'm only suggesting that to think the Israeli's haven't thought of it, is to believe I am smarter than they are...LOL.
Don't believe that Israel will not act, and don't think they will not act decisively...history has shown otherwise.
Be prepared for World War. Unfortunately, I believe it is in our future.
Comment Posted By JustIce On 27.09.2009 @ 23:39
Rick,
You do understand that by singling Glenn Beck out for a personal bash session you are only helping to grow his audience. He doesn't care what you, or any other pundit, thinks of him or his show. But by mentioning his name and stating that you watch him to find out what he is really up to, is just throwing gas on the fire.
You are truly missing the point when you attempt to analysis his motives, behavior, or methods. They are, quite simply, Glenn Beck. Just like there is only one Rush Limbaugh. He plays to his audience, much like any entertainer. He doesn't claim to be all things, nor does he claim to be right. One of the things I noticed (did you) is that he often asks for someone to come forth a disprove one of his theories.
It's obvious you disapprove of his tactics (and those of most other Conservative talk-show hosts). But in the overall scheme of things, you are no different, in that you are just as strident and unbending in your rules of engagement as they are or any Liberal for that matter.
The willingness to listen and try to understand ALL sides makes for a real discussion. Sometimes you are as closed minded and narrow as anyone you accuse of the same. This makes it hard to take you seriously.
By the way, I personnaly think Glenn Beck is a nutcase, but really fun to watch.
So I'm supposed to dialogue with people who think Glenn Beck is a reasonable man? Right. Talking to rocks is not my thing.
And it is laughable to think that because nobody comes forth to debunk his idiotic conspiracy theories that they are true or even legitimate. Why expend the energy to "disprove" that Wilson deliberately put the fasces on the back of our dime to show we support fascism? That is nutty on its face.
ed.
Comment Posted By JustIce On 22.09.2009 @ 15:56
A PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON TORTURE WOULD SATISFY NO ONE
Rick,
I suggest you read the following article by Marc A. Thiessen in the National Review Online:http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTMwYWM3MmZkNmQ0NjZiZTlkOWM4YTMzYzI0MmVlZTQ=
It really does have a valid thoery on the events at hand.
Here is an excerpt:
"The principle at work here is casuistry, in the proper sense of that term. Under casuistry, a just society adheres to certain moral norms. There are times when one finds exceptions to these norms, but the norm remains — and the exception must be justified. For example, the Ten Commandments teach us, unequivocally: “Thou shalt not kill.” Yet most of us agree that there are circumstances in which it is both moral and ethical to kill another human being. If a policeman sees a criminal who is about to kill an innocent person, he may use lethal force to stop him. If a foreign enemy threatens your country, it is permissible to go to war to defend it against such aggression. The norm — killing human beings is wrong — remains. But in some circumstances, killing — indeed, organized killing by the state — is morally and ethically permissible."
In my opinion this exemplifies the thought processes in place at the time. The article goes on to explain that concept in detail. Even going in depth and saying:
"Some disagree with casuistry and take an absolutist position on these moral questions. When it comes to matters of war and peace, we call such people pacifists. The critics of the CIA program are effectively arguing from a position of radical pacifism. Against pacifism stands just-war theory, which argues that society can prosecute war so long as it adheres to certain standards: discrimination and proportionality."
I have to think that the US is a just and good country. There are times when the means required to defend the country cross the lines with everyday rule of law. I understand this is a potential slippery slope, but I believe that the American people are such that we will constantly monitor this for abuse.
Keep in mind that if we are constantly at war or being attacked we cnnot concentrate on domestic matters. I believe that Sun Tzu was correct when he theorized that a nation that is known for destroying it's enemies, will never be attacked. I desire the US to continue being that nation.
Comment Posted By JustIce On 30.08.2009 @ 16:39
THE ROLE OF RACE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRESIDENT
Busboy33, Having grown up in the south and seen racial bigotry first hand, I can attest to the fact that it is real. I will also say that I don't think the south is more or less racist than the north. If anything, the west is more accepting of a black person than either the north or the south.
Objecting to large government, higher taxes, and more socialism, is not racist as much Republican.
Comment Posted By JustIce On 21.08.2009 @ 17:29
Hey Michael Reynolds...how do you REALLY feel. I'm not sure. It sounds like you are angry and pissed off at Republicans. Or are you angry and pissed off at Rush Limbaugh. Last time I heard, Rush is not the spokesman for the GOP, Michael Steele is. At least that's what the RNC says. Sounds to me like you are using extremely faulty logic.
Comment Posted By JustIce On 20.08.2009 @ 21:30
A FEW RAMBLING THOUGHTS ON THE GATES AFFAIR
Busboy33: I can understand your position and did not mean to imply that police have an unchallenged right to arrest people. They obviously do not and should never be able to.
I was simply stating that, from what I have read and heard on the subject, there are two major issues at play in the arrest and one major post-arrest problem: the charge of racism leveled at the police officer by Prof. Gates and the charge of police harassment level at police in general are the first. The actions of teh President to draw attention to the matter is the post-arrest problem. In both of the first case, the actions of the individual are ignored. Prof. Gates is above reproach, I'm not sure if it is simply because he was/is an American homeowner, on his on property, legally. Or if it because he is a black, Harvard professor, who teaches about the problems of race in America and is therefore above suspicion. I suspect it is probably both, with black Americans shifting a little towards the latter reason (as should be expected).
In any event. I think the biggest issue is the post-arrest problem created SOLELY by President Obama. His naive attempt to rectify the problem has made it bigger. As a CEO of the largest economy in the world, as Commander-in-chief during an on-going war, as the person who should be able to see the world picture, he exhibited extremely bad judgement in making this issue a moment of national history. I see it as a sign of immaturity and selfishness. Two qualities I do not admire in a leader. Yes, he can apologise and backtrack, but the words have been spoken.
Comment Posted By JustIce On 27.07.2009 @ 10:57
I find it interesting that if support the police you must be a Right-wing nutcase and if you support the Professor you are a Left-wing radical. This just goes to show that lack of progress that has been made over the past years. In my opinion the constant barrage of complaints of racism have had a "Chicken-little" effect. So that when legitimate cases of racism and discrimination occur, they are often lost in the noise. The Gates affair is one of those "bogus" racism claims that damages real efforts to move forward. Bad judgement by both parties does not constitute racial profiling. But since Prof. Gates has leveled the charge now it must run its course. I believe nothing will come out of this that will have any permanent positive effect on race relations. In the short term, however, I believe it has ratcheted up the animosity of the country towards fellow americans. I have to hold the President responsible for that fact.
Comment Posted By JustIce On 26.07.2009 @ 16:14
IT'S PAST TIME TO INOCULATE CONSERVATISM AGAINST THE BIRTHERS
Rick, What a shame that you feel the necessity of leaning on the tried and true censorship method to control the discussion. I am beginning to believe, in an effort to be more "mainstream", you are becoming less conservative and more centrist. But then again, I have yet to see a concise and yet accurate description of what a "conservative" really is.
I hope you will reconsider your "ban the book" mentality. Birthers may be wrong but I don't think they are not idiots, idealogues, or nutcases (I happen to live with one and she is an intelligent, thoughtful person). They are, for the most part, people looking for a way off this Obama-nation of a train. They see Obama as illegitimate and thus cannot hold the office of POTUS. They may not be right, but they are definitely scared. To shut them off, is kind of like sticking your head in the sand and humming at the same time. See no evil, hear no evil, there must not be evil.
Should you desire an intelligent discussion on this topic I would be most willing to oblige.
Comment Posted By JustIce On 26.07.2009 @ 16:55
