Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, June 02, 2014

OTP - June 2014: Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.

When security forces, insurgents, journalists and humanitarian workers were included, the war’s death toll rose to an estimated 176,000 to 189,000, the study said.

Bitter Mouse Posted: June 02, 2014 at 07:48 AM | 4613 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp, politics, stupid ideas

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 25 of 47 pages ‹ First  < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 >  Last ›
   2401. Publius Publicola Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:02 PM (#4725023)
By flipping "the practice of Islam" out for "fundamentailst" PP is hand waving away entire states like Indonesia.


How do you secularize a society that has sharia law? That's the part you don't get.

And if you get rid of sharia, then you are getting rid of Islam as well. That's another part you don't get. Again, you're interpreting events in the middle east through the prism of the protestant reformation, which isn't a particularly useful analogy but one often mistakenly used by westerners.
   2402. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4725030)
And if you get rid of sharia, then you are getting rid of Islam as well. That's another part you don't get. Again, you're interpreting events in the middle east through the prism of the protestant reformation, which isn't a particularly useful analogy but one often mistakenly used by westerners.


I have been assured by many Muslims I know and work with that this is just flat not true. I am not an expert, but every religion I know of has made accommodations for modern life and modern political organization. Your suggesting that Islam is unique in the it is all or nothing does have the fact that the fundamentalists agree with you, but then the Christian fundamentalists think the US is doomed because we have strayed from correct Christian law and practice.
   2403. Publius Publicola Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4725031)
Here's what the middle east has tp look forward to:


ISIS, beheadings and the success of horrifying violence
The first thing you hear is the music. It lilts and sways. Then you see the Islamist militants. They’re knocking at a policeman’s door. It’s the middle of the night, but the cop soon answers. He’s blindfolded and cuffed. They take him to the bedroom. And then, reports say, they decapitate him with a knife.

Another video captures militants with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) herding hundreds of boys and Iraqi soldiers down a highway to an unknown fate. “Repent,” ISIS told inhabitants of its newly conquered territory on Thursday. “But anyone who insists upon apostasy faces death.”
Death was everywhere in the sacked the city of Mosul, a strategically vital oil hub and Iraq’s largest northern city. One reporter said an Iraqi woman in Mosul claimed to have seen a “row of decapitated soldiers and policemen” on the street. Other reports spoke of “mass beheadings,” though The Washington Post was not able to confirm the tales.

But the United Nations Human Rights chief, Navi Pillay, said the summary executions “may run into the hundreds” and that she was “extremely alarmed.”


For those who don't know, apostacy is islamic code for liberal, "western" or secular tendencies.
   2404. Publius Publicola Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:13 PM (#4725033)
I have been assured by many Muslims I know and work with that this is just flat not true.


Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers."
   2405. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:14 PM (#4725034)
One party explicitly is in favor of Abortion, Safe, Legal and Rare.

That's not a "principle" (or anything close) and is subject to all matter of definition, gradation, and approach.

defining that life begins at the moment of conception.


Life does begin at conception. When the hell else does it start?

Independent life doesn't begin at conception, which leads to the necessity for all matter of definition, gradation, and approach.

   2406. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:17 PM (#4725037)
Joe, on the one hand, I completely agree with the quote (EDIT: the last, famous, quote, not the nutjob vet). However, I think the goal of any society should be to install and maintain a system where it isn't necessary very often.

So, two questions for you:

1) Do you think that time is here again that we need to water the tree?

I'm not advocating that anyone be shot. Andy was trying to make hay out of some random guy's comment, and I pointed out that such sentiment dates to our country's earliest days.

2) If so, do you agree Republican "elites" as well as Democratic "elites" should be shot? Or are you trying to revolution yourself into a Republican triumvirate?

Should the elites of both parties be shot? No. Should they be tossed and thereafter kept out of office? Yes.

Who is " You people should be embarrassed."? I was not defending violence but it appeared Joe was and I was curious if that was his intent. I know a lot of you guys react viscerally to each other (as do I on occasion) and I'm trying not to do that. Really wondering if Joe thinks it's time for shooting and, if so, are two Vegas cops the guys to go after.

It's interesting. Most of the people I know who are most right-leaning and revolution-hinting are former military and/or law enforcment. It surprises me that cop killing would fall under the defense of the right revolutionaries.

There's nothing to suggest either Jefferson or the West Chester voter thought any needed "revolution" would begin by shooting random police officers. It was not only a huge reach for Ron Fournier to try to link that guy's Jeffersonian sentiment with the Vegas shootings, but moronic and dishonest.
   2407. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:24 PM (#4725053)
Life does begin at conception. When the hell else does it start?


Some say implantation in the uterine wall (conception is typically sperm and egg having a first date). Others suggest viability is the true test of life, it is just potential before that.

The personhood amendments want to define life at conception, which makes abortion murder, and even some forms of birth control murder. The fact that you think that is not binary tells me you have more invested in the narrative than in thinking about reality.

How about the definition of marriage? How on earth is that not binary?

Essentially the two parties have very different sets of guiding principles, so distinct that there is basically no federally elected GOP office holder to the left (in any meaningful fashion) to any federally elected Democratic politician. It is a binary choice.
   2408. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4725055)
Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers."


That is the most non of all possible non-sequiturs. Congrats!
   2409. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:26 PM (#4725057)
Should they be tossed and thereafter kept out of office? Yes.


Out of morbid curiosity, by force, or through actual legal means?
   2410. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4725063)


How do you secularize a society that has sharia law?

And if you get rid of sharia, then you are getting rid of Islam as well.


Couldn't Israel be a model? Democratic, secular, but Orthodox rabbis must perform all marriages, and are in charge of certifying restaurants as kosher.
   2411. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:38 PM (#4725064)
Life does begin at conception. When the hell else does it start?


Hint: the sperm and ovum are both alive. Life precedes conception.
   2412. villageidiom Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4725065)
The personhood amendments want to define life at conception, which makes abortion murder, and even some forms of birth control murder.
And miscarriage a cause for a homicide investigation.
   2413. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4725069)
On the topic of Andrew Sullivan, he had this gem today:

The alternative – staying in those countries for ever – is just a euphemism for empire in a world that emphatically does not want us, and with an America that rightly wants us to focus on the struggles at home. As for the question as to whether around 5,000 Jihadists can threaten the security of the United States, the Israelis seem utterly unruffled – and they live much, much closer to the threat. There’s something awry when a continental superpower thousands of miles away is more jittery than Jews on the front lines. Keating identifies one good reason why the American people, with any luck, will not rise to the neocon bait yet again:


(source : http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/13/on-not-taking-the-neocon-bait/ )

OK, so he's talking about Israel and there's clearly an element of tongue in cheekiness, but considering the absolutely strident nature of Sullivan's ultra-vocal criticism of Israel, this strikes me as more than a bit off.
   2414. zenbitz Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4725070)
To my knowledge, there is nothing in Catholicism, or Orthodoxy, or Judaism, or Hinduism, that would prevent a society that was overwhelmingly composed of strict practicioners of that religion from being a western liberal democrac


I think you are making a false assumption about what religious texts "say" and what people do. It is more realistic to consider the case that people -- at least those with authority --do what they want and adjust their interpretation of holy writs to support them.
   2415. Publius Publicola Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:46 PM (#4725074)
Couldn't Israel be a model?


You're hoping islamist societies might adopt Israel as a model?

Good luck with that.
   2416. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4725079)
To my knowledge, there is nothing in Catholicism, or Orthodoxy, or Judaism, or Hinduism, that would prevent a society that was overwhelmingly composed of strict practicioners of that religion from being a western liberal democrac

I think you are making a false assumption about what religious texts "say" and what people do. It is more realistic to consider the case that people -- at least those with authority --do what they want and adjust their interpretation of holy writs to support them.


We're only a bit of zeal away from torturing heretics and violently purging witches from our midst.
   2417. zenbitz Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4725082)
@2403

This is exactly my point. These guys are instilling terror and murder and justifying it from the Koran. It's not the justification that's important -- it's the MURDERING.
   2418. The Good Face Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4725083)
I think you are making a false assumption about what religious texts "say" and what people do. It is more realistic to consider the case that people -- at least those with authority --do what they want and adjust their interpretation of holy writs to support them.


Islam (or any religion) IS as its adherents DO.
   2419. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 01:53 PM (#4725088)
I think you are making a false assumption about what religious texts "say" and what people do. It is more realistic to consider the case that people -- at least those with authority --do what they want and adjust their interpretation of holy writs to support them.

To an extent, yes. But there's a lot of justification for extremism in the Koran and Hadiths. Much more that in the OT or NT, or the Gitas.
   2420. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:01 PM (#4725095)
The personhood amendments want to define life at conception, which makes abortion murder, and even some forms of birth control murder.

It does no such thing. Even if life starts at conception -- which it empirically does (if not earlier) -- independent life doesn't.
   2421. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:06 PM (#4725098)
It does no such thing. Even if life starts at conception -- which it empirically does (if not earlier) -- independent life doesn't.


Yes it really does. And that is why the GOP favors it. They don't like abortion and want to stop it, because they believe life starts at conception. It is almost as if they have principles and are acting on the, just like Democrats have principles (opposed to the GOP ones) and are enacting their principles.

And to assert life is somehow different than the lovely term "independent life" and when it begins is very you. And terribly convenient.
   2422. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:06 PM (#4725099)

You're hoping islamist societies might adopt Israel as a model?


No. I am arguing against the idea that there is no possible model for a secular Islamic society.
   2423. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:08 PM (#4725103)
And to assert life is somehow different than the lovely term "independent life" and when it begins is very you.

Well ... yeah. I distinguish between distinguishable things.

It's called thinking.

Independent life -- self-evidently -- does not begin at conception. Life does.

   2424. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:09 PM (#4725105)

Yes it really does. And that is why the GOP favors it. They don't like abortion and want to stop it, because they believe life starts at conception. It is almost as if they have principles and are acting on them


But they really don't believe that life starts at conception. If they did, there would be a movement to treat or cure spontaneous abortions, which occur in around 40% of all pregnancies. That would be the #1 cause of death for human beings, and it would be a greater scourge than cancer, heart disease and neurological disorders combined. But there are no charities, not one, dedicated to saving those tens of millions of lives lost every year.

Nor do they advocate punishing women who have abortions, nor when there was legislation against abortion was there any effort to sanction hospitals that performed abortions in full daylight, in violation of the law.

   2425. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:14 PM (#4725106)
Hey let's look at data (crazy I know). According to Wikipedia, Morocco is 99.9% Muslim and it has for a government ... wait for it ...

Morocco is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy, whereby the Prime Minister of Morocco is the head of government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of parliament, the Assembly of Representatives of Morocco and the Assembly of Councillors.

Following the March 1998 elections, a coalition government headed by opposition socialist leader Abderrahmane Youssoufi and composed largely of ministers drawn from opposition parties, was formed. Prime Minister Youssoufi's government was the first ever government drawn primarily from opposition parties, and also represents the first opportunity for a coalition of socialists, left-of-center, and nationalist parties to be included in the government until October 2002. It was also the first time in the modern political history of the Arab world that the opposition assumed power following an election.[citation needed] The current government is headed by Abdelilah Benkirane.

The Moroccan Constitution provides for a monarchy with a Parliament and an independent judiciary. With the 2011 constitutional reforms, the King of Morocco retains few executive powers whereas those of the prime minister have been enlarged.

The constitution grants the king honorific powers; he is both the secular political leader and the "Commander of the Faithful" as a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed. He presides over the Council of Ministers; appoints the Prime Minister from the political party that has won the most seats in the parliamentary elections, and on recommendations from the latter, appoints the members of the government.

The previous constitution of 1996 theoretically allowed the king to terminate the tenure of any minister, and after consultation with the heads of the higher and lower Assemblies, to dissolve the Parliament, suspend the constitution, call for new elections, or rule by decree, the only time this happened was in 1965. The King is formally the chief of the military.


OMG, you are totally correct no MUslim country could ever become like a Western country! There are no examples anywhere.

Note: My exhaustive search went as follows. Google list of Islamic countries. Sort by % Of Muslim population. Click on the very first country with an actual percent (South Sudan had mostly blanks). Ta da! For my next trick I will try to find a Christian country that is western.
   2426. Publius Publicola Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4725108)
No. I am arguing against the idea that there is no possible model for a secular Islamic society.


"Secular" and "Islamic" are irreconcilable concepts. To the extent that secularization occurs, islamism has to be rolled back.
   2427. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4725109)
The constitution grants the king honorific powers; he is both the secular political leader and the "Commander of the Faithful" as a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed. He presides over the Council of Ministers; appoints the Prime Minister from the political party that has won the most seats in the parliamentary elections, and on recommendations from the latter, appoints the members of the government.

Western heads of state aren't deemed "Commander of the [Religious] Faithful as a direct descendent" of a religious figure.
   2428. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:18 PM (#4725110)
But they really don't believe that life starts at conception.


Hey I am trying to be charitable to the bunch of mouth breathing troglodytes and ascribe their their idiocy something approaching morals. I refuse to try harder on that particular project though.
   2429. Publius Publicola Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:19 PM (#4725111)
OMG, you are totally correct no MUslim country could ever become like a Western country!


That's not a muslim country. That's a country run by a secular monarch. And an independent and secular judiciary not adhering to sharia is a western concept and a form of apostacy.

So, you're actually supporting my position, in that liberalism and progress is contingent on the extent that pushing back of islamism is possible.
   2430. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4725124)
"Secular" and "Islamic" are irreconcilable concepts. To the extent that seculariZation occurs, islamism has to be rolled back.


Secular and Religion are irreconcilable. So what? We don't need the world to be secular. I'll settle for Modern Democracy.

The constitution grants the king honorific powers; he is both the secular political leader and the "Commander of the Faithful" as a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed. He presides over the Council of Ministers; appoints the Prime Minister from the political party that has won the most seats in the parliamentary elections, and on recommendations from the latter, appoints the members of the government.


Yeah that is totally incompatible with Modern Democracy.

The British monarch has the constitutional title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The canon law of the Church of England states, "We acknowledge that the Queen's most excellent Majesty, acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil."[46] In practice this power is often exercised through Parliament and the Prime Minister.
   2431. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:28 PM (#4725127)
That's not a muslim country. That's a country run by a secular monarch. And an independent and secular judiciary not adhering to sharia is a western concept and a form of apostacy.


Right, so the country that is 99.9% Muslim is not "a Muslim Country". You have strayed far far into "No True Scotsman" territory here, so far that you really need a map to get out.
   2432. Ron J2 Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4725130)
#2425 I'm surprised you didn't opt for Indonesia. Yeah, it's a new democracy, but seemingly a thriving one.

87.2% Muslim, but with freedom of religion in the constitution.

   2433. Publius Publicola Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4725131)
You have strayed far far into "No True Scotsman" territory here, so far that you really need a map to get out.


You need to read the Koran, for the first time, apparently. Also, it would help if you read a book on the history of the middle east going back to 622 AD, or perhaps a little before that.
   2434. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4725135)

Western heads of state aren't deemed "Commander of the [Religious] Faithful as a direct descendent" of a religious figure.


Meet Elizabeth II, By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
   2435. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4725138)
You need to read the Koran, for the first time, apparently. Also, it would help if you read a book on the history of the middle east going back to 622 AD, or perhaps a little before that.


So if I do that will I start ignoring all the Muslim countries that are democratic? And do I then get to pretend that Muslims are not really suited for democracy, because there are no democratic Muslim countries? Because if it makes me dumber I don't want to read those books.

I don't need to read a book on religion to know that people who practice that religion can also be part of a democratic nation WHEN I HAVE REAL LIFE EXAMPLES of it!

I don't need to read about Hinduism to know if Hindus can practice Democracy, I just need to find a Hindu Country that is Democratic. Where shall I look? Hmmm, tough one. Maybe the most populous democracy on Earth happens to be 80% Hindu.
   2436. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4725139)
Yeah that is totally incompatible with Modern Democracy.

In Morocco, the King, the "Commander of the Faithful," appoints the PM and members of the government -- it's right there in the stuff you cited. That isn't modern democracy.
   2437. Publius Publicola Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4725140)
87.2% Muslim, but with freedom of religion in the constitution.


From wiki:

East Timor

Religion

According to the 2010 census, 96.9% of the population profess Catholicism; 2.2% Protestantism or Evangelicalism; 0.3% are Muslim; and 0.5% practise some other or no religion.[83] In rural areas, Catholicism is practised along with local traditions.[84] The number of churches has grown from 100 in 1974 to over 800 in 1994.
...

The Indonesian military launched a full-scale invasion of East Timor in December 1975. Indonesia declared East Timor its 27th province on July 17, 1976 (Timor Timur).[25] The UN Security Council opposed the invasion and the territory's nominal status in the UN remained as "non-self-governing territory under Portuguese administration".

Indonesia's occupation of East Timor was marked by violence and brutality. A detailed statistical report prepared for the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor cited a minimum bound of 102,800 conflict-related deaths in the period 1974–1999, namely, approximately 18,600 killings and 84,200 "excess" deaths from hunger and illness.[26] The East Timorese guerrilla force, Falintil, fought a campaign against the Indonesian forces from 1975 to 1999. The 1991 Dili Massacre was a turning point for the independence cause internationally, and an East Timor solidarity movement grew in Portugal, Australia, and the United States.


So there's that.

Looks like a garden variety war of islamic usurpation to me. Nothing very freedom of religion-ish there.
   2438. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:40 PM (#4725143)
Meet Queen Elizabeth II, By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

But not "Commander of the Faithful."

And of course, in Britain the title is a meaningless anachronism, unlike in Morocco and other Middle Eastern countries.
   2439. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4725146)
In Morocco, the King, the "Commander of the Faithful," appoints the PM and members of the government -- it's right there in the stuff you cited. That isn't modern democracy.


And neither is the UK. And other nations. Seriously just stop. You are in a hole, stop digging.
   2440. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4725148)
NYT headline, two days ago:

"Morocco's King Slow to Deliver on Pro-Democracy Vows"
   2441. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4725149)
What part of "honorific" is confusing you?

The constitution grants the king honorific powers; he is both the secular political leader and the "Commander of the Faithful" as a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed.


adjective
1.
(of an office or position) given as a mark of respect, but having few or no duties.
   2442. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4725152)
And neither is the UK. And other nations. Seriously just stop. You are in a hole, stop digging.

The Queen doesn't choose the PM and cabinet in Britain.

You must know this already.
   2443. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4725153)
So there's that.

Looks like a garden variety war of islamic usurpation to me. Nothing very freedom of religion-ish there.


Wait are you claiming Indonesia is not a Democracy or not Muslim? If either of those please define the term to include the "right" countries and exclude the others. How about Morocco? Not Muslim or not a Democracy?
   2444. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4725155)

But not "Commander of the Faithful."


Amir al-Mu'minin is not a religious office. By contrast, Queen Elizabeth is the head of the whole Church of England, superior to the Archbishop of Canterbury.



In Morocco, the King, the "Commander of the Faithful," appoints the PM and members of the government


Exactly the same is true in Great Britain.


And of course, in Britain the title is a meaningless anachronism, unlike in Morocco and other Middle Eastern countries.


You don't even know what the title means.
   2445. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4725156)
What part of "honorific" is confusing you?

Your cite is using the term wrong. The King has very real substantive duties in Morocco. The sentence in which the term is used is self-negating.
   2446. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4725158)
The Queen doesn't choose the PM and cabinet in Britain.

You must know this already.


As I said, please describe a democracy in a way that excludes Morocco. Because you keep redefining and redefining. Morocco is clearly a democracy or at the very least most definitely on a path towards one, just looking at the last 30 years shows the progress it has made. Progress you and others would claim is impossible because "Muslim".

I for one would be ecstatic is the whole Middle East became as modern as Morocco or Indonesia. But because it does not fit your narrative, your preconceived notions, you have to try to redefine on the fly. You are embarrassing yourself.
   2447. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:49 PM (#4725159)
Exactly the same is true in Great Britain.

It is not. The Queen appoints the electoral winners in Britain and respects the PM's choice of cabinet. The King chooses in Morocco.
   2448. Publius Publicola Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4725161)
Meet Queen Elizabeth II, By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.


Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the reduction of the British monarchy to figurehead status an outgrowth of the enlightenment, a fountenhead of modern liberal political thought if there ever was one, and that the British monarchy today is something like a vestigial organ remnant of the feudal era?

Likewise, if the king of Morocco, or the Morroccan people, have moved away from sharia in order to have a functioning secular civil government, that just supports my point, it doesn't refute it. If you have muslims who don't practice their religion or don't show any interest in Islam or don't wish it to inform civic affairs, then they aren't really muslims, in the same way that Madelyn Murray O'Hair wasn't a Christian. That is entirely in support of the point I'm trying to make.
   2449. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:51 PM (#4725163)
As I said, please describe a democracy in a way that excludes Morocco. Because you keep redefining and redefining. Morocco is clearly a democracy or at the very least most definitely on a path towards one,

A system in which a monarch chooses the Prime Minister and cabinet on his accord is not a modern democracy.

The fallback position of "definitely on the path towards one" is duly noted -- though recent news stories appear to indicate otherwise.
   2450. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:51 PM (#4725164)
The King has very real substantive duties in Morocco.


So what? Seriously even if you are right (and wikipedia wrong) you don't understand even what Democracy is.

Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,[3] are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.[4]


Allow me to re-quote from above.

Following the March 1998 elections, a coalition government headed by opposition socialist leader Abderrahmane Youssoufi and composed largely of ministers drawn from opposition parties, was formed. Prime Minister Youssoufi's government was the first ever government drawn primarily from opposition parties, and also represents the first opportunity for a coalition of socialists, left-of-center, and nationalist parties to be included in the government until October 2002. It was also the first time in the modern political history of the Arab world that the opposition assumed power following an election.[citation needed] The current government is headed by Abdelilah Benkirane.


Democracy dude. Learn it, live it, love it!
   2451. bobm Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4725165)
Wikipedia:
The Supreme Governor [of the Church of England, ie the Sovereign] formally appoints high-ranking members of the church on the advice of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who is in turn advised by church leaders.
   2452. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4725168)
That is entirely in support of the point I'm trying to make.


That Morocco is not Muslim or that Morocco is not a Democracy? What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Is it that religious extremist governments are not liberal and democratic? Because we agree in that. If it is Muslims can't be democratic, then you are flat wrong.
   2453. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4725169)
Pew Survey, 2013:

"Is it good or bad that laws do not follow Sharia closely"

Morocco: 76% bad, 13% good.
   2454. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4725172)
A system in which a monarch chooses the Prime Minister and cabinet on his accord is not a modern democracy.


For the record I did not ask what a democracy is not, I asked what one was. A positive definition, that includes countries you think are democratic bit not any Muslim ones, and is in rough accord with common sense. Good luck with that, btw.
   2455. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4725175)

It is not. The Queen appoints the electoral winners in Britain and respects the PM's choice of cabinet.


That's the tradition but they are not legally obligated to. There have been minority governments in Britain in the recent past.


Likewise, if the king of Morocco, or the Morroccan people, have moved away from sharia in order to have a functioning secular civil government, that just supports my point, it doesn't refute it. If you have muslims who don't practice their religion or don't show any interest in Islam or don't wish it to inform civic affairs, then they aren't really muslims


I thought we were supposed to judge Muslims by what they DO (that was GF's argument above, at least). Moroccan Muslims certainly practice their religion, show interest in Islam, and wish it to inform civil affairs.
   2456. Greg K Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4725177)
In Morocco, the King, the "Commander of the Faithful," appoints the PM and members of the government -- it's right there in the stuff you cited. That isn't modern democracy.

Well technically UK and Canada work the same way. The head of state (Monarch or Governor-General as the Monarch's representative) invites the leader of a party to form a government. By custom this is the party that has won a majority of seats in parliament, but the Governor-General can still play a role. For instance in 2008 the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc lost confidence in the Conservative minority government and for a while it was constitutionally possible that they would lose the House and the Governor-General could ask the coalition of three parties to form a government themselves. This didn't happen, but it would have been constitutionally valid.

Also I fail to see what the difference is between "Defender of the Faith" and "Commander of the Faithful", though I admit Queen Elizabeth does not claim to be a descendant of Jesus, or St. Paul, or whoever.

Morocco's system of government seems relatively new (I see a new round of reform was announced in 2011) so we'll see if it is a stable form of government, though it seems to be doing ok. But it certainly looks like it fits under the same umbrella of "constitutional monarch" under which I live.
   2457. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4725179)
Pew Survey, 2013:


And the price of Apple stock right now is $91.35. Great, now answer the questions.
   2458. Greg K Posted: June 13, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4725186)
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the reduction of the British monarchy to figurehead status an outgrowth of the enlightenment, a fountenhead of modern liberal political thought if there ever was one, and that the British monarchy today is something like a vestigial organ remnant of the feudal era?

Well that's a bit of a simplification, and a tad Whiggish.

The century (or a bit less) of struggle between Crown and Parliament that culminated in the Glorious Revolution in 1688 had quite a bit to do with sectarian religious conflict. If successive Kings were able to do a better job of distancing themselves from Catholicism the history of the relationship between Crown and Parliament may well be quite different.

I don't think the move towards secularism and liberalism (at least in the form of parliamentary superiority to the monarchy) were at all parallel in Britain.
   2459. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: June 13, 2014 at 03:47 PM (#4725241)
Like I have said many times the parts poll way better than ACA by name does (similarly Kynect polls better in KY than ACA does). You added in the BS nonsense about what that means.

Your argument is like saying that feces-and-chocolate-covered cheesecake is a popular dish because chocolate and cheesecake poll well. Haha, look at all those rubes turning down my #### cheesecake! They like chocolate! They like cheesecake! What's the problem retards?

The costs to benefits aren't contrived magically out of thin air, even if that's what the progressofascist wing of the Democratic party believes, so simply polling benefits and claiming it's super-popular as a result is something a really, really dumb person does.

Kynect is only *part* of the benefit implementation of the ACA, the public face of the benefits of the insurance exchange. To argue that makes Kynect one and the same as the ACA, an act that lays out benefits and costs, is like wearing a t-shirt that says "Room temperature IQ."

But sure, go on about all those stupid hicks. The Heroic Progressive Gods will save the riff-raff from the sheer stupidity and immorality and cleanse those illiterate, in-bred mountain crackers of their sin!
   2460. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4725257)
And the price of Apple stock right now is $91.35. Great, now answer the questions.

You need democracy defined for you?

A liberal polity is also more than just a "democracy." It also includes things as protections for minority rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. That isn't Morocco.
   2461. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 13, 2014 at 04:09 PM (#4725263)
But sure, go one about all those stupid hicks. The Heroic Progressive Gods will save the riff-raff from the sheer stupidity and immorality and cleanse those illiterate, in-bred mountain crackers of their sin!

Sure seems like quite a few of those "illiterate, in-bred mountain crackers" have signed up for the ACA. You might want to watch out whom you're insulting.

Of course in your world those "illiterate, in-bred mountain crackers" are nothing but a bunch of freeloaders mooching off you and yourn, whereas the ones who have no idea that Kynect has anything to do with that evil plague called "Obamacare" are noble yeomen of (cough, cough) the purest pioneer stock.

Not that any of this dueling hillbilly #### matters, as the eventual fate of the ACA is going to be determined in the long run by people all over the country asking themselves "On balance, do I want to keep the ACA with all its features and flaws, or do I want to go back to 2008?" Give it a few more elections and it's all going to settle out one way or the other, possibly to your dismay.
   2462. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4725265)


Kynect is only *part* of the benefit implementation of the ACA, the public face of the benefits of the insurance exchange. To argue that makes Kynect one and the same as the ACA, an act that lays out benefits and costs, is like wearing a t-shirt that says "Room temperature IQ."


The ACA is paid for by a) penalties paid for by those without insurance, b) a surcharge on high-cost insurance plans, c) additional taxes on insurance companies and medical device manufacturers. Don't tell me that the public is up in arms about any of those costs.
   2463. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4725272)
bip
   2464. Publius Publicola Posted: June 13, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4725283)
The century (or a bit less) of struggle between Crown and Parliament that culminated in the Glorious Revolution in 1688


I was referring to a later period, in the early 1800's, when a reform movement changed the power relationship between the crown and parliament. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
   2465. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4725285)
The ACA is paid for by


the people not living off the fat of the land.
   2466. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4725297)
The ACA is paid for by a) penalties paid for by those without insurance, b) a surcharge on high-cost insurance plans, c) additional taxes on insurance companies and medical device manufacturers. Don't tell me that the public is up in arms about any of those costs.

And the general taxpayers for all the added Medicaid recipients, and for everyone else when those revenue sources prove deficient.

Also, I'm sure the people paying the penalties are pissed now.
   2467. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 04:24 PM (#4725314)
Also, I'm sure the people paying the penalties are pissed now.


Yeah.

More generally, I loved the "Don't tell me that everyone now paying more money is up in arms about now paying more money."

Let's extend:

"Don't tell me that same-sex couples being denied the right to marry are up in arms about being denied the right to marry."
   2468. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 13, 2014 at 04:27 PM (#4725322)
I'm not advocating that anyone be shot. Andy was trying to make hay out of some random guy's comment, and I pointed out that such sentiment dates to our country's earliest days.

That's great, so now you're trying to link Jefferson with a guy who wants us to imitate the early weeks of the Cuban revolution. Why not just keep it domestic and link him to Bill Ayers and the Weathermen?

Obviously you're not advocating that people go around shooting policemen, but when your only reply to this comment....

At West Chester's popular D.K. Diner, a military veteran who served five combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan said the only solution may be a revolution against political elites. "We may need to drag politicians out and shoot them like they did in Cuba," said a grim-faced Frederick Derry two days after a Las Vegas couple allegedly shot two police officers. The attackers draped their bodies with a "Don't Tread on Me" flag, according to ABC News, pinned a swastika on them and a note that read, "The revolution has begun."


...is to say....

There's nothing to suggest either Jefferson or the West Chester voter thought any needed "revolution" would begin by shooting random police officers.

All that comes across is an implication that it's okay to shoot politicians but not police officers. Not that you believe that, either, but your original comment could easily be interpreted that way.

It was not only a huge reach for Ron Fournier to try to link that guy's Jeffersonian sentiment with the Vegas shootings, but moronic and dishonest.

That comment about shooting politicians a la Castro stands quite well on its own.

And BTW the person who found Fournier's comments "interesting" was none other than YC, who was also the one who provided the original link to them.
   2469. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: June 13, 2014 at 04:27 PM (#4725323)
All his talk about democratic muslim countries and no mention of Turkey? Why not?
   2470. bobm Posted: June 13, 2014 at 04:52 PM (#4725390)
Per my earlier post [2451]

From Yes Prime Minister - THE BISHOP'S GAMBIT

"Getting the PM to choose the right bishop is like a conjuror getting a member of the audience to choose a card. With the Church of England the choice is usually between a knave and a queen."
   2471. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 04:58 PM (#4725400)
All his talk about democratic muslim countries and no mention of Turkey? Why not?

Not Arab. The conversation has centered around Arab Islam.
   2472. Ron J2 Posted: June 13, 2014 at 04:58 PM (#4725401)
#2470 well they are going through a dark patch. The original phrasing included the word liberal and ... well I personally wasn't interested in trying to defend the notion that it's a "liberal democracy". (To be clear though, it's obviously a secular democracy in a Muslim country even if the governing party is mildly Islamist)

It's certainly a really bad place to be a journalist right now (among the highest rates of journalists imprisoned). They've also tried shutting down social media to derail anti-government protests. Though in an important sign that it is in fact a democracy, the courts ruled against the ban and the government respected the ruling (while making it clear that they profoundly disagreed)

EDIT: Minor phrasing change
   2473. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:04 PM (#4725411)
Not Arab. The conversation has centered around Arab Islam.


Then what does Indonesia have to do with anything?
   2474. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:05 PM (#4725413)
Only 12% of Turks believe sharia should be the law of the land. You can have a liberal society at that figure.

You obviously can't at, say, the 91% of Iraq or the 89% of the Palestinian territories (*), or the 83% of Morocco.

(*) Particularly when 66% of those people think leaving Islam should be punished by death.

   2475. Greg K Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4725414)
I was referring to a later period, in the early 1800's, when a reform movement changed the power relationship between the crown and parliament. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Oh sure, the struggle* between Crown and parliament is/was a long one, with many crucial moments. The 1832 Reform Act was certainly an important one too, and as much as we can ever draw lines into things, is perhaps when we can start to talk about "modern representative politics" with any kind of coherence. Though even then you have a lot of disparate parties working towards their own ends - Whigs, the anti-Catholic break-offs from the Tory party who supported the reform movement as a way of sticking it to the government that had relaxed the anti-Catholic laws, and the Chartists who were deeply unsatisfied with the 1832 Act that didn't go far enough. It may be irrelevant to the current discussion, but I'm just uncomfortable with the flow of political history being tied to as broad concepts as the Enlightenment. I feel on much safer ground discussing what people thought about what they were doing, and what political movements they adhered to. I think the Britain of today is much more secular than that of the early 19th century, and it is also much more liberal. But I'd be hesitant to assume that there is a clean relationship between those two in the actual practice of liberalizing and secularizing.

*Not the best word, as they were not always, in all places, competing powers, but that's perhaps a discussion for another time.
   2476. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:26 PM (#4725430)

The ACA is paid for by a) penalties paid for by those without insurance, b) a surcharge on high-cost insurance plans, c) additional taxes on insurance companies and medical device manufacturers. Don't tell me that the public is up in arms about any of those costs.


Well considering "worth what it cost" question is polling far worse than general approval of ACA, apparently people are. So essentially, you live in the same bubble of delusion as Mitt Romney's pollsters. Self high-five!
   2477. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:33 PM (#4725437)
Somebody had better tell the insurance companies that Obamacare is about to collapse under its widespread unpopularity. Five new insurers are hopping onto Michigan's exchanges for 2015 (making 18 in total), to go along with two more in Illinois, four in Indiana, one in Kentucky, four in New Hampshire, and four in Washington.
   2478. Publius Publicola Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:34 PM (#4725438)
Only 12% of Turks believe sharia should be the law of the land. You can have a liberal society at that figure.

You obviously can't at, say, the 91% of Iraq or the 89% of the Palestinian territories (*), or the 83% of Morocco.

(*) Particularly when 66% of those people think leaving Islam should be punished by death.


Word.

And the key is sharia. Sharia is part and parcel to Islam. In order to liberalize, Islam has to be marginalized in equal portion.
   2479. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:36 PM (#4725441)
But sure, go on about all those stupid hicks. The Heroic Progressive Gods will save the riff-raff from the sheer stupidity and immorality and cleanse those illiterate, in-bred mountain crackers of their sin!


Other than you putting words in my mouth I never did "go on about those stupid hicks", but hey don't let that stop you in a good rant.
   2480. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:37 PM (#4725443)
It's certainly a really bad place to be a journalist right now (among the highest rates of journalists imprisoned). They've also tried shutting down social media to derail anti-government protests.

They should've called it campaign reform and derided the participants as guilty of electioneering. That would have been enough to give half the posters still posting regularly in these stupid political threads gigantic erections.
   2481. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:40 PM (#4725446)
If you believe the practice of Islam isn't inhibitory, or even hostile, to the construction of liberal, democratic societies


So we have given multiple examples of countries that are reasonably democratic, including Morocco, Turkey, and Indonesia. But we are in the land of goal shifting, where we have a preferred narrative "Islam bad and not Democratic" and so some folks need to keep trying to get there no matter the examples.

And for those that are crying about this fault and that fault, wanna bet I can come up with Christian democracies that have done worse things in the last 70 or 80 years. No one is saying they are where we want them to be, heck the US is not where I want it to be, it could be much more democratic and liberal, but they are clearly on the right path and far enough that suggesting Islam is hostile to the process is silly.
   2482. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:43 PM (#4725449)
And the key is sharia. Sharia is part and parcel to Islam. In order to liberalize, Islam has to be marginalized in equal portion


So all the Moroccans, all 99.9% of the population, are doing Islam "Wrong" according to you. All the Muslim turks, wrong. All the Muslim Indonesians, wrong.

Or maybe, just maybe, you are wrong about Islam.

It is like any other religion, good people use it for good and to justify their good, bad people do the inverse. There is nothing wrong or evil about it or the people who practice it.
   2483. Publius Publicola Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:56 PM (#4725463)
One of the more extreme examples of politics making strange bedfellows:

Iraq crisis could make US, Iran allies

Istanbul — With the call to arms today by Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric, the crisis in Iraq threatens to become an even broader regional sectarian conflict. But it could also bring about unusual cooperation between the US and Iran, who have a mutual interest in stemming Sunni militants' lightning advance across Iraq this week.
...

The blitzkrieg by ISIS – backed by angry Sunni tribes disenfranchised by Mr. Maliki’s rule, and even Saddam-era officers – has upended political calculations from Washington to Tehran, where the presidents of both the United States and Iran separately pledged support.

“They’ve all been playing with fire, and now they have a bonfire. And I don’t see any one of them having enough water to put it out,” says Rouzbeh Parsi, an Iran-Iraq specialist now at Lund University in Sweden.

The result may be a “bizarre” situation in which the US and Iran find themselves on the same side, due to the acuteness of the crisis.

"If they want to save Iraq they are going to have to work together,” says Mr. Parsi.
   2484. Publius Publicola Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4725464)
So we have given multiple examples of countries that are reasonably democratic, including Morocco, Turkey, and Indonesia.


And each of those examples have ratcheted back their Islamism accordingly. What is it about this concept you are failing to grasp, Bitter?
   2485. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 06:20 PM (#4725481)
The dead brokedness doesn't fall far from the tree:

Chelsea Clinton isn’t scrubbing pennies together like her “dead broke” parents did back in 2001.

The mom-to-be is apparently making bank as a “special correspondent” at NBC News, earning an annual salary of $600,000 before switching to a month-to-month contract this year, sources told Politico.

http://nypost.com/2014/06/13/chelsea-clinton-is-making-bank-at-nbc/
   2486. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 13, 2014 at 06:31 PM (#4725494)
That's great, so now you're trying to link Jefferson with a guy who wants us to imitate the early weeks of the Cuban revolution. Why not just keep it domestic and link him to Bill Ayers and the Weathermen?

Obviously you're not advocating that people go around shooting policemen, but when your only reply to this comment....

At West Chester's popular D.K. Diner, a military veteran who served five combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan said the only solution may be a revolution against political elites. "We may need to drag politicians out and shoot them like they did in Cuba," said a grim-faced Frederick Derry two days after a Las Vegas couple allegedly shot two police officers. The attackers draped their bodies with a "Don't Tread on Me" flag, according to ABC News, pinned a swastika on them and a note that read, "The revolution has begun."


...is to say....

There's nothing to suggest either Jefferson or the West Chester voter thought any needed "revolution" would begin by shooting random police officers.

All that comes across is an implication that it's okay to shoot politicians but not police officers. Not that you believe that, either, but your original comment could easily be interpreted that way.

It was not only a huge reach for Ron Fournier to try to link that guy's Jeffersonian sentiment with the Vegas shootings, but moronic and dishonest.

That comment about shooting politicians a la Castro stands quite well on its own.

And BTW the person who found Fournier's comments "interesting" was none other than YC, who was also the one who provided the original link to them.

All this, from the same guy who once got banned from the site for advocating that a fellow Primate be "shot in the face" for having an opposing political opinion.

All that comes across is an implication that it's okay to shoot politicians but not police officers. Not that you believe that, either, but your original comment could easily be interpreted that way.

Who knows? Someday, it might be OK to shoot politicians. If the idea was good enough for Thomas Jefferson, it's good enough for me. And, indeed, there are plenty of other places on Earth where shooting politicians would be a great idea.

And BTW the person who found Fournier's comments "interesting" was none other than YC, who was also the one who provided the original link to them.

I don't recall YC cherry-picking that West Chester guy's quote and trying to make hay out of it.
   2487. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 13, 2014 at 06:38 PM (#4725507)
I don't recall YC cherry-picking that West Chester guy's quote and trying to make hay out of it.

Indeed.
   2488. tfbg9 Posted: June 13, 2014 at 06:45 PM (#4725517)
All this, from the same guy who once got banned from the site for advocating that a fellow Primate be "shot in the face" for having an opposing political opinion.


Oh, do tell!
   2489. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 13, 2014 at 06:45 PM (#4725518)
And each of those examples have ratcheted back their Islamism accordingly. What is it about this concept you are failing to grasp, Bitter?

???

Failing to grasp concepts is a way of life for Bitter Mouse.

***
Oh, do tell!

Ha ha. I don't recall the particular political issue that led to the hostilities, but Andy got banned for 30 days a couple years ago for advocating The Good Face be "shot in the face" — which, one surmises, would have made him The Bad Face or even The No Face.

I was sure Andy was compiling epic 40,000-word comments offline during his little break, but, alas, he didn't.
   2490. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 07:06 PM (#4725539)
Ha ha. I don't recall the particular political issue that led to the hostilities, but Andy got banned for 30 days a couple years ago for advocating The Good Face be "shot in the face" — which, one surmises, would have made him The Bad Face or even The No Face.

Health insurance. He's also recently advocated that "tobacco CEOs" be castrated (*) -- though, as it turned out, not because they sold cigarettes, but because they made money from selling cigarettes.

(*) As well as some other disfavored subgroups that escape present recollection.
   2491. tfbg9 Posted: June 13, 2014 at 07:26 PM (#4725560)
That actually doesn't sound all that offensive. I would have guessed Andy's exile was earned for the cumulative ill will resulting from his Ripkinesque streak of unfunny jokes.



   2492. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 13, 2014 at 07:35 PM (#4725568)
That actually doesn't sound all that offensive. I would have guessed Andy's exile was earned for the cumulative ill will resulting from his Ripkinesque streak of unfunny jokes.


You can tell an unfunny-but-he-thinks-it-was-funny-but-really-he-is-trying-to-make-a-veiled-political-attack joke from Andy because he completes it with:

(smile)

   2493. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 13, 2014 at 07:43 PM (#4725570)
Ha ha. I don't recall the particular political issue that led to the hostilities,

FWIW, here are the two comments of GoodFace's that got me banned for reacting to it as I did.

I believe that people who can't afford medical care and can't find anybody willing to volunteer to provide it or pay for it should go without....

Lulz! Oh noes, teh poor peoples are going to DIE IN THE STREET! Won't somebody think of the childrens at gunpoint!


Now this was nothing but spirited philosophical opinionating, so utterly commonplace and within the modern (and not-so-modern) "conservative" mainstream that it barely even gets noticed.

But whatever. I did the crime and I did the time, and somehow we all survived.
   2494. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 13, 2014 at 07:46 PM (#4725574)
You can tell an unfunny-but-he-thinks-it-was-funny-but-really-he-is-trying-to-make-a-veiled-political-attack joke from Andy because he completes it with:

(smile)


Those (smiles) are purely for the benefit of the terminally literalminded Primates such as yourself who would otherwise be playing "gotcha" and feeling offended on a serial basis. For more literate people they're superfluous.
   2495. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 07:54 PM (#4725586)
Now this was nothing but spirited philosophical opinionating, so utterly commonplace and within the modern (and not-so-modern) "conservative" mainstream that it barely even gets noticed.

But whatever. I did the crime and I did the time, and somehow we all survived.


Yet a bunch of veterans actually *did die* because of Obama administration health care corruption and incompetence and you shrugged -- for purely partisan reasons.

Now, which is worse?
   2496. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 13, 2014 at 08:06 PM (#4725594)
Those (smiles)s make me angry (snarl). I don't understand why Andy uses them (grimace). Especially when discussing something as contentious as Obamacare (spastic twitch). I hope he stops telling me how to feel (dull lifeless stare). Otherwise, there's always ignore (rivers of flesh melt off face like a Nazi opening the Ark).
   2497. steagles Posted: June 13, 2014 at 08:45 PM (#4725619)
i've changed my opinion on iraq.

you need to crush these ####### with overwhelming military force now, while they're still relatively small in numbers and they don't have any political roots.


i have no interest in building anything or protecting the iraqi government, but if you go in and massacre these ####### now, that will probably save a lot of aggravation later.
   2498. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 13, 2014 at 08:52 PM (#4725621)
you need to crush these ####### with overwhelming military force now, while they're still relatively small in numbers and they don't have any political roots.

Makes a lot more sense than a few drone strikes in Pakistan.
   2499. greenback calls it soccer Posted: June 13, 2014 at 10:30 PM (#4725680)
Those (smiles) are purely for the benefit of the terminally literalminded Primates such as yourself who would otherwise be playing "gotcha" and feeling offended on a serial basis.

Message boards are driven largely on self-righteousness. So I'm pretty sure the (smiles) don't work, if that's the plan.

Has anybody posted that the RNC is dressing an intern like a squirrel, and then sending the putative squirrel to Hillary's book signings? At this point the only reason to hold the 2016 election is to prevent a recession caused by unemployed political strategists.
   2500. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 13, 2014 at 10:44 PM (#4725689)
Has anybody posted that the RNC is dressing an intern like a squirrel, and then sending the putative squirrel to Hillary's book signings? At this point the only reason to hold the 2016 election is to prevent a recession caused by unemployed political strategists.

Scoff all you want, but some of us still remember when Paul Tsongas ended Bill Clinton's political career with the devastating "pander bear."
Page 25 of 47 pages ‹ First  < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(771 - 4:13am, Aug 29)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogSimmons' run-saving stop
(35 - 4:11am, Aug 29)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogMets call up Dilson Herrera, have "talked about" d'Arnaud to LF
(9 - 4:07am, Aug 29)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogCalcaterra | John Rocker to join the cast of “Survivor”
(2 - 3:56am, Aug 29)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT:  2014 College Football pre-season thread
(45 - 3:40am, Aug 29)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-28-2014
(108 - 3:07am, Aug 29)
Last: Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes

NewsblogPosnanski: Alex Gordon and the M-V-P chants
(26 - 2:29am, Aug 29)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogAfter awkward attempt at game-saving catch, Yankees' Ichiro Suzuki gets testy with reporters
(5 - 2:01am, Aug 29)
Last: TJ

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(6029 - 1:34am, Aug 29)
Last: zonk

NewsblogRingolsby: Pete Incaviglia paying dues as independent league manager
(12 - 1:20am, Aug 29)
Last: zonk

NewsblogBusiness Week: Houston Astros' Jeff Luhnow Lets Data Reign
(3 - 1:13am, Aug 29)
Last: Weratych

NewsblogJonny Venters Tears UCL, Facing Third Tommy John Surgery
(2 - 12:52am, Aug 29)
Last: CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck

NewsblogDavid Justice Says Put Barry Bonds in Baseball Hall of Fame Despite Steroid Use Late In Career
(145 - 12:42am, Aug 29)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogJack White, Eddie Vedder, and Paul Simon take in a Seattle Mariners game
(148 - 12:14am, Aug 29)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(364 - 11:48pm, Aug 28)
Last: RollingWave

Page rendered in 1.1186 seconds
53 querie(s) executed