Dear Mr. Ex President Clinton:

I recently saw a bumper sticker that said, "Thank me, I voted for Clinton-Gore." So, I sat down and reflected on that, and I am
sending my "Thank you" for what you have done, specifically:

1. Thank you for introducing us to Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broderick. Did I leave anyone out?

2. Thank you for teaching my 8 year old about oral sex. I had really planned to wait until he was a little older to discuss it with him, but now he knows more about it than I did as a senior in college.

3. Thank you for showing us that sexual harassment in the work place (especially the White House) and on the job is OK, and all you
have to know is what the meaning of "it" is. It really is great to know that certain sexual acts are not sex, and one person may have sex while
the other one does NOT have sex.

4. Thank you for reintroducing the concept of impeachment to a new generation and demonstrating that the ridiculous plot of the movie "Wag the Dog" could be plausible after all.

5. Thanks for making Jimmy Carter look competent, Gerald Ford look graceful, Richard Nixon look honest, Lyndon Johnson look truthful,
and John Kennedy look moral.

6. Thank you for the 73 House and Senate witnesses who have pled the 5th Amendment and 17 witnesses who have fled the country to avoid
testifying about Democratic campaign fund raising.

7. Thank you, for the 19 charges, 8 convictions, and 4 imprisonments from the Whitewater "mess" and the 55 criminal charges
and 32 criminal convictions (so far) in the other "Clinton" scandals.

8. Thanks also for reducing our military by half, "gutting" much of our foreign policy, and flying all over the world on "vacations"
carefully disguised as necessary trips.

9 Thank you, also, for "finding" millions of dollars (I really didn't need it in the first place, and I can't think of a more deserving
group of recipients for my hard-earned tax dollars) for all of your globe-trotting. I understand you, the family and your cronies have logged in more time aboard Air Force One than any other administration.

10. Now that you've left the White House, thanks for the 140 pardons of convicted felons and indicted felons-in-exile. We will love
to have them rejoin society. (Not to mention the scores you pardoned while Governor of Arkansas )

11. Thanks also for removing the White House silverware. I'm sure that Laura Bush didn't like the pattern anyway. Also, enjoy the housewarming gifts you've received from your "friends."

12. Thanks to you and your staff in the West Wing of the White House for vandalizing and destroying government property on the way out.
I also appreciate removing all of that excess weight ( China , silverware, linen, towels, ash trays, soap, pens, magnetic compass, flight manuals, etc.) out of Air Force 1. The weight savings means burning less fuel, thus less tax dollars spent on jet fuel. Thank you!

13. And finally, please ensure that Hillary enjoys the $8 million dollar advance for her "tell-all" book and you, Bill, the $10 million advance for your memoirs. Who says crime doesn't pay!

14. The last and most important point - thank you for forcing Israel to let Mohammed Atta go free. Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners". However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammed Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center . This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports. Why shouldn't Americans know the real truth?

What a guy!!

If you agree that the American public must be made aware of these facts, pass this on. God bless America and THANK YOU (once again) for spending my taxes so wisely and frugally.

SINCERELY,
A US Citizen
PS. Thanks for the recent Sandy Burglar scandal, where he stuffed classified Clinton-era intel into his socks.
PPS Please pass along a special thank you to Al Gore for "inventing" the Internet, without which I would not be able to send this wonderful, factual e-mail.

AND THE REST OF THE STORY Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under the "Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan," which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies. (Would it not be nice if all Americans were pension eligible after only 4 years?)

If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that?

WE DO!

It's common knowledge that in order for her to establish NY residency, they purchased a million dollar-plus house in upscale Chappaqua, New York. Makes sense. They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments hover at around $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residence HAD to be built within the acreage to house the Secret Service agents.

The Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the use of that extra residence, which is just about equal to their mortgage payment. This means that we, the taxpayers, are paying the Clinton's salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, as well as the salaries for their 12 man staff -- and, this is all perfectly legal!

When she runs for President, will you vote for her?

I'm surprised they didn't mention the Vince Foster "Suicide" that conveniently happened.

It would be funny if it were not true!

Oh yeah, in answer to the question; Not only no, but hell no.

Was this in the Onion? About half of it is simply false, the rest is myopic (i.e. criticizing Clinton for doing what Republicans do). For example, the part about Clinton "forcing" Israel to "free" is just another Conservative anti-Clinton wet dream that someone apparently made up:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/atta.htm

Care to post any more fiction, Herb? I see the letter omitted some of the really rich right-wing crap about Clinton being a master drug smuggler while governor of Arkansas.

Andrew

I don't know about the drug smuggling, but here's some info about the Vince Foster "suicide"

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.html

So do you think Ken Starr covered it up? After all, even he came to the radical conclusion that Vince Foster died by suicide. But I guess Ken Starr only got it wrong once in a while, because he found Clinton guilty of all that Whitewater stuff...oh, wait, he found NOTHING on the Clintons in Whitewater. I guess I can take some small comfort in knowing that the tens of millions of dollars Starr wasted on this witch hunt are a pittance compared to the large fortune Bush the Slower is pissing away in Iraq.

By the way, I'm trying to keep my right-wing conspiracies straight (so to speak): is Hillary a man-hating lesbian or was she sleeping with Vince Foster?

Andrew

And Reagan, GDUHbya and our present idiot in the white house never did anything wrong????

Herb:

(Yawn)

This one is so old that the "kid" in item two:

"Thank you for teaching my 8 year old about oral sex...."

is now halfway through college (age 20!), almost Monica's age, and old enough to legally participate in oral sex, and has engaged in it far more often than Mommy and Daddy ever did, either before or after marriage. Lucky "kid"!

It's also so old that the second statement in #8 is no longer true. Bush takes the term "vacations" to a whole new stratospheric level, never before seen by any previous President. An easily provable fact.

Who lied when they answered "no" to the question "Have you ever been either charged or arrested for a crime?" on the Department of Defense security clearance form? Linda Tripp.

Who was the last person on the planet to see Vince Foster alive? Linda Tripp.

Who needed to live vicariously through Monica Lewinsky? Linda Tripp.

Who changed her name and went into hiding? Linda Tripp.

Who looks like Dick Cheney in a bad wig and black dress borrowed from the estate of J. Edgar Hoover? Linda Tripp.

Hmmmm... could they be the same person? No, but there is an uncanny resemblance.

It has been confirmed that Dick Cheney was drawing a hefty paycheck at Halliburton the whole time.

Bash and Slash™

Darth Cheney has been drawing MILLIONS from HELLaburnin' for the last 6 1/2 years and it's being covered up.

Hmmm, Littlesongs is on to something...

Yes, Linda/Dick could be the cross-dresser a heartbeat away from the presidency.

It's Linda with a dick.

Keep the the damn shrub alive!

Mrs. M, This kind of shrub(ery)?

HEAD KNIGHT: We want... a shrubbery!
ARTHUR: A what?
HEAD KNIGHT: Nee! Nee!
ARTHUR and PARTY: Oh, ow!
ARTHUR: Please, please! No more! We shall find a shrubbery.
HEAD KNIGHT: You must return here with a shrubbery or else you will never pass through this wood alive!
ARTHUR: O Knights of Nee, you are just and fair, and we will return
with a shrubbery.
HEAD KNIGHT: One that looks nice.
ARTHUR: Of course.
HEAD KNIGHT: And not too expensive.
ARTHUR: Yes.
HEAD KNIGHTS: Now... go!

Nee! Nee! I love that!

Love,

Mrs. Come-back-here-you-Chicken

OK, So Herb thinks that since no one is (interested enough to) de-bunk(ing) his retarded chain mail letter above, I'll start with one point that I know is a lie.

The portion "The Rest of the Story" at the bottom of Herb's email, regarding the Secret Service and charging them rent is not true.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/landlord.asp

This one's even better:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blclinton.htm

(The Clintons don't accept the "rent" money owed to them, which is $1100 a month, not $10,000. also Secret Service protection does not last a lifetime anymore, I think it's 10 years now?)

It's only a flesh wound!!!!!

The late Gerald Ford earned more money than any President in United States history. He was never elected. His real name wasn't Gerald Ford. He was in office long enough for a cup of coffee and golfed at taxpayer expense for decades. The Reagan administration should have shut that money spout off and put him and his reformed booze hound wife in a home, right?

("It's just a rabbit...")

As they used to say on a famous TV game show, I'm going to flip all the cards....

And since you guys are gonna go ad hominem on us, you might as well rename this site www.pdxradio.commie

Herb

Who's "us"?

Since when have we discussed the merits of communism?

I don't even remember reading a post about moustache and beard grooming.

In their prime, Marx, Castro and Stalin sported some pretty mean bristles.

Still, my favorite commie has to be Harpo.

Herb's personal hero is Castro!!!!

How can we forget Brezhnev's unibrow Littlesongs? My God you could have landed a 747 on that thing!

Along with two Yaks and a Tupolev!

"Herb's personal hero is Castro!!!!"

Interesting.

I am an avowed anti-communist.

While your pals, Mr. Carter the media elite and the Hollywood left fawn all over the black-heart of Cuba.

And Mr. Castro is MY personal hero?

That's more spin than a Maytag dryer.

Herb

Cuba has gorgeous women, fine cigars, nice weather - except for the hurricanes - and a ton of classic American iron still on the streets. It was once a place controlled by fruit companies and the mob. Does it still surprise you that somebody got angry enough for a revolution?

I'm not a fan of Castro, though I will admit he is a compelling historical figure. He has withered away, along with his politics and vision, much like his peers around the world. He does, however, make one logical argument: America should not govern all of the Americas.

We do keep "the most dangerous men on the planet" under lock and key on his sunny isle, don't we? A host with that much beach and good rum can't be all bad.

Read your Monroe Doctrine.
That document would have saved the Cuban people a LOT more suffering than Mr. Castro's Communist Manifesto has inflicted on a wonderful people.

Herb

We both agree that what has happened for decades and continues to happen in Cuba is tragic and wrong. Our only real difference is that I encompass all of Cuba in that statement -- including Guantanamo. Only a despot like Castro would allow such things to happen in his own country, but perhaps it is acceptable to him because we reflect his own attitudes toward his enemies.

This is for Littlesongs:

http://sniggle.net/Manifesti/groucho.php

"..we reflect his own attitudes toward his enemies."

As Mrs. Clinton would say: "Not so fast."

Compare the US to Mr. Castro and you won't get a lot of sympathy from me.

We've open our arms to those citizens fleeing from his oppressive regime. And you say we reflect his own attitude toward his enemies?

Please. That's the worst spin yet.

Herb

That is absolutely priceless! Thanks Edsel, I've got to forward that to some of my friends.

Torture always breeds violence. The Egyptians jailed and tortured Sayyid Qutb when he was only an activist. The months of abuse hardened his feelings and turned his mind away from preserving the spiritual purity of his faith to simple revenge. He went from being a stubborn fundamentalist who had an American education and wanted to save Islam, to being a radical writer whose works created the foundation for world-wide terror. This was all because of torture. When he was executed in 1966, seeds of jihad were sown that are still being reaped today. Our country should never stoop so low as to circumvent the Geneva Convention when we know the potential consequences.

The Geneva Convention is a fine document.

It does not apply to spies or those not wearing a uniform.

I want to wear the white hat. But when these guys are killing innocents, they need to be stopped and sometimes one doesn't have a week or two to allow them to pull off their dastardly deeds.

Herb

Those guys are mostly farmers dragged off the streets of Afghanistan. This is why we keep them a year or so, torture them, figure out they only really know about goats and send them back home angry as hornets. Not one single terrorist plot has been prevented by intelligence from Guantanamo. Not that the information would matter anyway if it came down the pike. Our leadership has already demonstrated a tragic lack of alarm about real intelligence and an utter fascination with red herrings.

The Geneva Convention is a fine document.

What's fine about it?

IMHO, they want the consequenses.

I've a really hard time with that much incompetence. Creating a conflict in the middle east could result in a scenario where we have more control, or at the least reduce the level of control others have in the region.

The big problem, setting basic human rights issues aside, is failure to properly anticipate the scale of those consequenses, or our ability to deal with them. Debating which is likely pointless.

"Our leadership has already demonstrated a tragic lack of alarm about real intelligence and an utter fascination with red herrings."

Care to substantiate that generalized and porcine-fisted statement?

Herb

"Care to substantiate that generalized and porcine-fisted statement?"

Sure, but I should not have to spell this one out: S-e-p-t-e-m-b-e-r
E-l-e-v-e-n.

(By the way, all of our allies and even our enemies without fancy radar and multi-million dollar weather satellites saw Katrina coming, but I'll leave that out of this discussion.)

Herb,

Do you have a "Word of the Day" calendar?

No.

But I read a lot.

Herbacine

This is gonna hurt the shrub right in the wallet, but if he wants to stop terrorism, he needs to get into a time machine, go back to the year 2000 and freeze every single financial asset in Saudi Arabia. It shouldn't be hard, his Pa and the Bin Ladens will introduce him around and explain the situation.

You have a point, Littlesongs.

The Saudis have as much to lose as we do.

Besides, 'If you aren't with us, you're against us.'

Herb

'If you aren't with us, you're against us.'

Agreed on the Saudis, but this is BS.

Do you mean with us in every regard, or just some parts? How about being with us, but not happy with the current administration? Is is better to just play along or actually apply pressure that may well be in all our mutual interests?

And on and on and on.

The world is a lot more complex than this bumper sticker slogan allows for. What, there are only two sides to the entire world? The US or everybody else?

This kind of thing flies a lot better when we have the high ground. Right now we don't, and that means a lot of nations are not with us, but not against us. See how that works?

Spin indeed from Herb>>>>
While your pals, Mr. Carter the media elite and the Hollywood left fawn all over the black-heart of Cuba.

MY pals???

Spin away!
WOW!

Herb, this is why I think that the partisan bickering is wrong. You and I both connected the dots and came up with the Saudis. We are both entitled to hold our opinions, but on this fact we are bound by the truth.

Without the support of Saudi oil wealth, there would not have been an attack on the WTC the first time. The tragedies that followed were due to our inability to grasp the fact that some folks are violent sick wretches with nothing better to do than fund chaos.

Al-Qaeda is a rich man's game. It is not funded by children selling candy door to door. It is a shame that our foreign policy has made it an even more attractive investment to the small number of billionaire zealots and crackpots we still so faithfully protect on the Arabian Peninsula.

As Mrs. Clinton would say: "Not so fast."

"We've open(ed) our arms to those citizens fleeing from his oppressive regime."

Really, Herb? We just let 'em all in? We just let 'em dock their rafts, and give 'em all a green card, subsidized housing, welfare, health care, and put the kiddies in school?

Hot Damn. Nobody told me, I thought we still had a border patrol with boats and guns and stuff in like, Florida. That Jeb! What a humanitarian!

"Please. That's the worst spin yet."

I agree. The Saudis need to either come clean and own up to their involvement, or risk being taken over by their no-so-friendly religious brethren.

Herb

"I thought we still had a border patrol with boats and guns and stuff in like, Florida."

Your man, Mr. Clinton, had Janet Reno send Elian Gonzales back. Don't lecture us about returning kids into the arms of a black-hearted dictator like Mr. Castro.

Herb

Nice dodge to your statement, Herb.

But I'll bite. One kid. People magazine said he's happy. He's still alive, isn't he?

Actually, I don't give a hoot about Castro or the Isle of Cuba. It means nothing to me. (Besides the human rights abuses, of course).

"He's still alive, isn't he?"

Hardly. But that's not the issue.

How he could be sent back to Cuba when his mother died trying to give him a better life away from Mr. Castro is beyond words.

For once, I'm speechless.

Herb

He was returned to the arms of his closest living relative, his father. I don't think Castro probably ever met the kid.

Of course, I understand what you meant by "into the arms of Castro" but I doubt the average Cuban is feeling daily pain and suffering due to the policies of Castro. They are leading their lives as best they can (much the way you and I do), in a less-than-perfect situation. And I can fully understand a father wanting to be reunited with his son.

Herb,

Are you going to address or elaborate on your statement "We've open(ed) our arms to those citizens fleeing from his oppressive regime"

Also, I'm wondering if you're going to apologize to, or at least thank me for setting the record straight on your Clinton e:chain-mail?

C'mon, you can do it, it won't literally kill you to admit you posted an untruth or two. Even to a girl.

Herb dodged that one from ya MM!!!

There are days I'm happy the Merkin is here!

(Even if she is a girl!)

EWWWWWWW!
Girls germs no returns.......

We opened our arms to the Mariel boatlift from Cuba, even though Mr. Carter ended up approving quite a few thuggish criminals in the mix.

We also routinely grant political exile to those who escape the dastardly clutches of Mr. Castro.

I eagerly await a free Cuba.

Herb

Herb said - "I eagerly await a free Cuba."

Why? Because then what will happen?

You apparently have no concept of evil, tyannical dictators.

Why else did our founding fathers give their lives for freedom? They voiced these words:

Don't Tread On Me.
Live Free Or Die.
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death.

Only if you've witnessed the oppression of others by thugs like Castro could you get a grip on how fortunate we are in this country.

The Russian people lived over 70 years with the jackboot of communism on their necks.

To even ask your question suggests you may not understand what the Cubans, and millions of now-freed citizens, including the Kurds, Afghanis and Iraqis now understand: the value of freedom.

Herb

Afghanis are DYING everyday from car bombs and suicide attacks just like Iraqis. And the Taliban is making it's way BACK.....
Iraqis are free and can vote BUT.... There are hundreds dying every week in suicide attacks! CIVIL WAR is breaking out and the country is a a mess. LESS than 50% have electricity and clean water 3 years after we INVADED.
Freedom comes at a cost??? Hundreds of thousands of women and children's lives????
Herb thinks it's worth it cause it's NOT happening at his door step.
Herb...
You like what's going on over there???
WOW!

We're reversing thousands of years of enmity over there.

Heck, it took a long time here to give women and blacks the right to vote.

You want it done pronto? This isn't a microwave oven war.

Herb

America wasn't surrounded by Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia either. Your gonna have to take them out too.
WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE TROOPS AND THE CASH to pull that off??? Herb, are you going to put on the fatigues??? Are you going to fork out all the cash???
Just wondering???

Listen.

You come up with a plan so that we don't recreate our exit from Vietnam, when all those poor Vietnamese were slaughtered by the evil communists and I'm there.

Giving the Iraqis a shot a freedom is what we all want.

Herb

Well wait Herb - you are mistaken to imply, merely by the fact that I asked you your take - that I don't understand or agree or have no way to relate. ( "You apparently have no concept of evil, tyannical dictators." ) I was just asking you a question. I didn't want to assume your reasons. (" To even ask your question suggests you may not understand what the Cubans, and millions of now-freed citizens, including the Kurds, Afghanis and Iraqis now understand: the value of freedom." ) You are very vocal about Cuba. It's pretty far down my list of priorities - but I'm not immune to listening to why someone else think it's a high priority.

And just because I am interested in your take doesn't mean I am some blank slate with no opinions. I'm one of the few around here who take a moment regularly ASK you your opinion. I don't assume, put words in your mouth or assign any motive. I mean, yes - I have suspicions - I can't help it. It's human nature. But it's just easier to ask sometimes. At least it's supposed to be.

Frankly I think that what motivates you is a mindset that is going the way of the dinosaur. So much of it does seem like history that we have already learned from and are eager to apply to present day situations. But you spend a lot of time wanting to make sure that we/you and the like get some sort of points for nobility from things 30 or 40 years ago. I'm past all that wanting credit stuff.

Yet - I can still relate to it. I want it too. It's just not as important to me as it is you. That's all.

We can talk more when you realize that I'm not ganging up on you and when you aren't just swinging at anything that moves.

Herb!!!!!!
We went there for WMD's!!!!!!!!!!!
VX and Saran gas!!!!
We went there because the attack to the US was going to come in the form of a mushroom cloud!
We did NOT and I repeat did NOT go there to free anyone! We went there for WMD's!
They sold it to us lock stock and barrel for 3 1/2 months! Deep COLON POWELL sat in front of the UN and showed us in DRAWINGS that they had VX gas and that they were trying to acquire YELLOW CAKE!
FREEDOM WAS NOT AND I REPEAT NOT ON THEIR AGENDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Were you not in front of your TV during that time???
Ignorance is very bliss with you Vinny Herbarino!
Your from Mississippi right??? DEEP South????

"The Saudis need to either come clean and own up to their involvement, or risk being taken over by their no-so-friendly religious brethren."

Finally, we all agree on something.

'We did NOT and I repeat did NOT go there to free anyone!'

Well, our CIA, military, Peace Corps and State Dept. should all work together with that as a goal for every oppressed people. That is, unless you can find any oppressed people who actually LIKE being slaughtered and imprisoned for valuing freedom.

Herb

"Frankly I think that what motivates you is a mindset that is going the way of the dinosaur. So much of it does seem like history that we have already learned from and are eager to apply to present day situations."

Chickenjuggler!

IT IS STILL THE SITUATION.

Look at China. Communist for over half a century now.

Look at Cuba. Communist since 1959.

Look at North Korea. Communist even longer than Cuba.

IT HASN'T CHANGED BECAUSE MAN HASN'T CHANGED.

Who's the dinosaur?

As long as you have a mobster mentality brutally killing innocent citizens, you will need to fight these bullies. Neville Chamberlain was wrong. He thought he would make peace with Hitler. Not gonna happen, especially with appeasers like the French [who were invaded twice, before we saved their sorry behinds] sharing intel on our movements.

The heart of man can be desperately wicked, indeed.

Herb

So Herb, you think we should treat Cuba different than the way Nixon treated China? Is the Chinese regime better than the Cuban regime to deserve all of our billions of dollars in trade?

Andrew

"We're reversing thousands of years of enmity over there."

No, we are not. We are turning a garden hose on a hornets nest. We have very short sighted views in our approach to millennia of ancient conflict. This is a culture that parks a car bomb in front of a school, not to kill Americans, but to kill little girls because they are learning to read.

Sure, there are well documented economic and political reasons we have a presence in the Middle East. Obviously, big oil wants us there to protect the supply. It doesn't help our cause that the petrochemical giants were entrenched in the region early last century when it was carved up by the west for the west.

Still, I believe that there is a another reason that, right or wrong, we take the side with Israel. Our leaders still feel guilty about turning their backs on the Holocaust. If, as champions of free people everywhere, we had acknowledged the Nazi atrocities during the war and added them to our list of grievances, it would be different.

Instead, the journalists who dared mention the Jewish slaughter were politely shushed until we needed their stories to put things in context when it was over. As long as we continue to pay for our passivity toward ethnic cleansing in World War Two, we will never be free of this conflict.

Ironically, if the Allies had not killed more civilians in bombing raids than in any war before or since, believe it or not, we might have been even less sympathetic toward the many minorities who were murdered by Hitler's Reich. It might have taken years for even a fraction of the truth, much like our current situation after the intervention in the Balkans.

The state of Israel exists for a lot of good sound reasons. Unfortunately, it is also a place where America has invested a great deal to protect oil resources and to exorcise a whopping hell of a lot of good old fashioned white guilt. If we could simply get them to talk to the Palestinians, we might start to see a bit of the "enmity" erode under an electron microscope.

In the big picture though, these folks will never ever get along. Divided families take a long long time to bury to hatchet. In Iraq, we were -- and continue to be -- treated like cops called to a domestic dispute, and as any officer will tell you, those are the ugliest.

"Heck, it took a long time here to give women and blacks the right to vote."

Took? Took?! That implies that things have changed more than they have. Tell that to the black truck driver who sacrificed a day of pay, waited 9 hours in the biting teeth of a fall morning, afternoon and evening in Ohio, only to be told he could not vote. Tell that to the single mother who did not cast a ballot because she was in line behind the truck driver and she could not leave her children alone after school.

Tell that to the thousands of voters who braved the weather only to find out the machines had stopped working long before their Constitutionally guaranteed vote was counted. I won't even go into the mess that still exists in Florida. The only thing that has changed is that the working poor are not divided into subgroups, but instead, they are all screwed with equal zest.

"You want it done pronto? This isn't a microwave oven war."

I agree. Unfortunately it is being run by someone who lived on T.V. dinners, Jack Daniels and Jiffy Pop well into his 30s. The only thing he has cooked in his life is our goose.

"..we reflect his own attitudes toward his enemies."

Yes, we do.

To both powers, a dead dissident is a dead dissident. Both Cuba and the United States have tortured and killed people on that little Caribbean isle. Both countries have acted in the name of their own ideological interests and shrugged it all off as all in a days work.

We have a better track record and a smarter publicist, but we are just as guilty of murdering innocent people to "make the world a safer place" for... (current ideological buzzword). When civil rights and due process are casually discarded, it does not matter who holds the sword. It is simply wrong.

"...we are just as guilty of murdering innocent people.."

The biggest lie of all.

We shed our own blood to save innocents.

You owe our military men and women an apology.

Herb

Private security contractors, mercenaries and government agents do the dirty work around the world and Cuba is no exception. Abu Ghraib prison was another facility run by this coalition of the sadistic. Our military was not sent with orders to torture or kill in Guantanamo. Those orders came later from Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Our soldiers spend most of their time protecting the perimeter from press, shooing away locals and escorting prisoners. Since 2002, officers and men have reported the atrocities by the book, but until recently nobody wanted to hear about it. Now, they are usually kept far enough away to not be witnesses to the violence.

I will thank our soldiers for continuing to report what they see to the handful of brass who are still entitled to information about the base. So far, most whistle blowers have been labeled as unpatriotic. It is their duty to report and our duty to support them for standing up for the truth.

I can only apologize for not being powerful enough to send them home to their families. I am disappointed in a small minority of our servicemen and women who have participated in atrocities, but I view them as unrepresentative of the majority of our soldiers.

We do. And we convict them too. Hopefully. But to say we don't, is false.

"I am disappointed in a small minority of our servicemen and women who have participated in atrocities, but I view them as unrepresentative of the majority of our soldiers."

Fine. We can agree that a handful of bad eggs are in any large organisation. However, what I took issue with is was a comment that did not distinguish that we're talking a "small minority":

"...we are just as guilty of murdering innocent people to "make the world a safer place..."

My point is that we're NOT just as guilty. Misplaced enthusiasm for going into Iraq? Ok. A bold and error-prone move to take out Saddam? Fine.

But if we were just as guilty as murderers and torturers, we would not be sacrificing American blood to give these people a shot at freedom. We've given these terrorists 3 hots and a cot, a prayer rug, a Koran and are now even giving them legal assistance, despite that they do not fit the Geneva Convention rules for such.

And if Mr. Cheney & Rumsfeld did anything illegal, then go after them. But don't disparage the best and bravest among us, simply because of a handful of miscreants.

Herb

"they do not fit the Geneva Convention rules for such."

Any torture on our part is completely unacceptable.

Fine.

You have a terrorist with intel on a bomb about to kill hundreds of innocent people.

You're gonna go namby-pamby on us?

I don't think so.

Herb

WWJT = Who Would Jesus Torture?

And Herb...you gotta stop watching "24".

Seriously!

Besides, how does one know they won't just surrender information that's bogus?

Herb, we've been torturing people with no clear and present threat at hand.

Ok, Edselehr and Missing.

Time to stop with potshots and deliver the goods.

Given a terrorist with credible intel on a bomb about to kill hundreds of innocent people, what will your lily-livered approach be?

Unless you act, hundreds of innocents will likely die in order to grant civil rights to a terrorist who does not qualify under the Geneva Convention, and who also will cut off your head in an instant.

It's easy being a bleeding heart. And if you wanna die in your ignorance and naivete', fine. Just don't take the rest of us with you.

Herb

Herb, your position on this seems like a perfect example of the One Percent Doctrine in action. Please read the following and tell me what you think:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2120605&page=1

"what will your lily-livered approach be? "

Can you engage in a conversation without resorting to a "ham fisted" "ad hominem" attack?

Amus.

I was not attacking you.

I was attacking your approach.

There is a difference.

Herb

"Please read the following and tell me what you think..."

How does this differ from the 1% [or fewer] of pregnancies that occur from incest? The left wants to trot out this defense when it pushes for the right to kill the totally innocent unborn.

Yet when I defend the innocent who will also be slaughtered, and by a terrorist, you give us this 1% argument?

If you haven't gotten it by now, this is where I stand: In defense of innocent life. I really don't care if a slimeball holding credible intel who wants to cut off our heads is uncomfortable. I'm for protection under the law, but we're talking about terrorists who don't even qualify for Geneva Convention protection, for cryin' out loud.

Why on earth do you guys bend over backwards to give these guys so much of your attention? Do us all a favour and watch Clint Eastwood in his film "Dirty Harry" tonight, then get back to me.

I'm serious.

Herb

I didn't offer an approach.

But your approach is loaded, and does nothing to promote civil discussion.

Does using "lily livered" add anything to the conversation?
Or is it intended to provoke?

Granted, it's loaded.

But no more than the thought of allowing dastardly evil-doers to kill innocents.

Pardon my frustration.

Herb

And Herb, I was very serious, though glib, about the points I was making in my 12:11pm post.

How do you, as a Christian that strives to live by the dictates of Christian morality, so easily justify torture as a means of extracting information from suspects? And I mean suspects, people that have yet to have been found guilty of anything in a court of law. Your unwavering defense of the unborn seems to be in opposition to your unbridled willingness to torture.

Second point: Has the media, especially in shows such as '24' and feature films that center their plots around defeating terrorists, contributed to a misconception about the nature of terrorism? The "ticking time bomb" makes for a great plot device, and helps push a movie towards completion in 2 hours while keeping tension high. But as a reflection of the real world of how terrorists work, it is about as ficticious as it gets. Terrorists work with long time lines. How long between the first and second WTC attacks? About 7 years? There are more effective and more humane ways of extracting information than torture, and the quality of the information is better. Yes, these methods take more time, but that's okay as long as you don't fall into the mental trap of thinking that every terrorist plot is a "ticking time bomb". That's how entertainment media have shaped this debate.

And that's how I feel the One Percent Doctrine applies in this case. When there is even the slightest chance that a captured terrorist might have information that might reveal the existence of a Ticking Time Bomb (maybe even one we don't know about), then the most extreme measures in order to stop it become validated. Why was so much torture allowed at Abu Graib? Did all those prisoners have information that would allow us to stop an about-to-happen, imminent attack? I don't think so. I think, because they *might* have had such information, the One Percent Doctrine was applied.

Unless, of course, our leaders just like torturing prisoners. It would be sad if that were true.

Let's use history as a guide. During WWII German POW's were happy to serve time in American POW camps. They were treated with respect, fed well, and I would think very little torture-like actions were used on them. This decent treatment did much to win the hearts and minds of German soldiers and the German people. And isn't that one of our primary goals in the region?

"How do you, as a Christian that strives to live by the dictates of Christian morality, so easily justify torture as a means of extracting information from suspects?"

Nice try, but give me a hard one. The concept of 'Just War' is biblical.

And by the way, those POW's weren't tortured and that's because they weren't killing and cutting throats. If they had been, they would have been summarily executed.

Herb

Okay, let's look at "Just War". Oh, it seems it must be fought in a just manner:

"Only appropriate force should be used. This applies to both the sort of force, and how much force is used. The means used must be in proportion to the end that war seeks to achieve. In other words, Not just the aim of the war, but the means used to fight it must be in proportion to the wrong to be righted.

"Destroying an enemy city with a nuclear weapon in retaliation for the invasion of an uninhabited island would make that war unethical, even though the cause of the war was just.

"The war must prevent more human suffering than it causes.

"It must prevent more evil than it causes.

"Weapons that are intrinsically evil should not be used: Chemical and biological weapons; nuclear weapons; Landmines, because they are indiscriminate weapons which cause great harm to civilians; Genocide, mass rape, torture and so on.

"The Hague Convention of 1907 bans: poison or poisoned weapons; killing or wounding treacherously; killing or wounding an enemy who, having lay down his arms, or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered at discretion ; declaring that no mercy will be given to defeated opponents; using arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering."

I've reformatted the above for readability. Here's the source:

http://biblia.com/jesusbible/joshua3c.htm

As for the second part of your post - Herb, you are clearly intelligent, but that has to be one of the most naive statement I've ever seen you make. POW's would have been executed for blowing up or cutting the throats of the enemy? That's what soldiers DO. If that were true then neither side would need POW camps - just kill everyone you capture, because all contributed in some way to the deaths of others. By that standard shouldn't the US be executing every terrorist they capture?

No.

You made the statement:

"During WWII German POW's were happy to serve time in American POW camps. They were treated with respect, fed well, and I would think very little torture-like actions were used on them. This decent treatment did much to win the hearts and minds of German soldiers and the German people. And isn't that one of our primary goals in the region?"

And your statement is true. I was merely pointing out that had any of the German soldiers caused a problem, they would have been summarily taken care of, in a proportional manner.

By addressing well-behaving prisoners, you miss the entire point, because that's NOT who I'm talking about. The prisoners in Abu Gharib are NOT who I'm talking about.

I'm talking about those with credible intel, holding the lives of innocents in the balance.

Herb

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and killed about 3,000 We retaliated by destroying the Japanese empire, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of japanese. You telling me it wasnt a "Just" war?

Hitler didnt even attack us, but be killed hundreds of thousands of Germans, and helped the Soviet Union kill milions. You saying that wasnt a "Just" war?

In WWII, after the Malmondy(sp) massacre, and there is some doubt it happened the way commonly portrayed, the US gava an order, no SS prisoners were to be taen alive for 1 week, so did that action make WWII unjust?

Yeah, Hitler didn't attack us, but he declared war on us. So of course we declared war in response. What did you expect us to do? Whether or not it was a "just war" at that point was irrelevant.

In any case, torture doesn't work when you're trying to get information. You get the tortured person to a point where they will say anything to get you to stop.

Andrew

Actually torture works very well, under certain conditions, IE you know just enough to be able to tell if the subject is giving reasonable answers.

But the US hasnt tortured anyone, and no one has been charged with torturing anyone, harsh treatment yes, but no torture.

How do you know the US hasn't tortured anyone? One thing we do know is that the US has sent prisoners to countries (e.g. Egypt) that do torture them, knowing full well what was going to happen to them. What's the difference?

Andrew

"You have a terrorist with intel on a bomb about to kill hundreds of innocent people.

You're gonna go namby-pamby on us?"

No, I am going to read the memo, alert the nation and do everything in my power to prevent it. No torture was involved in gathering intelligence to support the contention that we might be attacked, but still, this President went on vacation. Sure enough, our allies and spies were right and we all witnessed the results.

This incompetent knee-jerk administration is making great noises about nailing the door shut on the barn long after the cows have wandered away. Adding torture to the list of tools we use does not make us safer at all. It has quite the opposite effect. It puts our soldiers and citizens in peril.

Yep. Supporters of torture need to re-read what you wrote above about Sayyid Qutb and how his torture and imprisonment by the Egyptian government in the 1960s spawned or inspired so much of today's radical islamic movement. It seems quite reasonable that without Qutb, there would be no al Qaeda.

Andrew

I cannot believe this discussion!

Human rights are fucking human rights, period!

Nwokie, a coupla big reasons why we don't have more formal Terror charges against are:

-we redefined torture to better match our deeds
-we have suspended habius corpus
-we have secret courts making decisions!

Herb, I would not torture them period. There are lots of ways to engage in compelling interrogation, that do not involve torture. There is enough doubt as to what they know and how they can help, and if the help will actually matter, to take torture off the table.

I've said this a lot here. Either we are Americans or we are not. If we are to continue being Americans, we need to eat our own dog food, meaning we abide by the treaties we have signed on to, our law applies to all of us or none of us, and we respect core human rights.

If we must surrender these things to deal with terror, then the terrorists win. It's that simple.


I'm ashamed to share citizenship with you guys right now. Grow a pair and quit surrendering your self and your nation to fear based thought.

If Mr. Clinton had nabbed Osmama Bin Laden, we wouldn't be at war.

Herb

Yes, torture. They were also kind enough to hide at least one element of it in our home town a few years ago. Disgusting.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/12/09/jet_linked_to _torture_claims_is_sold/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002132447_ciaplane28.html

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Jan/20050109News034.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/article/largerphoto?thisnode=nati on/nationalsecurity&showSky=false&imgId=I28124-2004Dec26

Herb writes:
If Mr. Clinton had nabbed Osmama Bin Laden, we wouldn't be at war.

Right - and if Bush the Slower had nabbed him? After five years even? Do you think more Americans will die in a future terrorist attack because Bush the Slower didn't capture Osama at Tora Bora?

Andrew

And that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. --Nothing Herb.

Our Resident President™ had been planning Iraq long before 9/11. It just so happens Osama gave him an in. If it was not 9/11, it would have been something else. We have not yet learned all we need to know, but we have learned enough.

Iran is going the same way right now. The only difference is people are wise to the ploy and it's proving harder to get justification --even false justification.

I'm still ashamed to share citizenship with you Herb. Either you are an American and have the guts to act in ways that reinforce all that comes with that, or you are something else, driven by fear and greed.

Which is it?

If Mr. Bush had nabbed Osama Bin Laden in Tora Bora, he would have lost most of his justification for going into Iraq...Doh! (slaps forehead with palm of hand) Now I get it!!

(edit: Quick-Draw Andrew beat me to the point!)

'Our Resident President/ had been planning Iraq long before 9/11.'

Care to substantiate that?

Herb

If Mr. Ronald McDonald Reagan wouldn't have given Sodomy Insane hundreds of thousands of pounds of VX and Sarin gas he wouldn't have killed thousands of Kurds and stayed in power as long.
Thanks Ronnie!

"Either you are an American and have the guts to act in ways that reinforce all that comes with that, or you are something else, driven by fear and greed."

Oh. So I'm unAmerican because I value American lives and those of innocents over the terrorists?
You're the one who blames America and those who defend her.

Typical lib spin.

We're known by our enemies. Badge of honour.

Herb

"By addressing well-behaving prisoners, you miss the entire point, because that's NOT who I'm talking about. The prisoners in Abu Gharib are NOT who I'm talking about."

I said nothing about well-behaved prisoners. I was addressing our good behavior as captors. You seemed to miss MY entire point.

However, I see that you pulled Clinton into this discussion, completely out of the blue. Rhetorically brilliant move. Touche'. I guess he is fair game, being in the subject of the thread and all...

Torture is not a Christian nor an American value, Herb. I can't truly understand a mind that can subscribe to both the teachings of Jesus Christ and the idea that torture is "OK" in some cases. It's just not. Maybe I'm jingoistic, but I think Americans are better than those countries that torture their citizens. We shouldn't stoop to taking the values of the Islamic fundamentalists, should we?

In World War II, we could have sunk to the level of the Germans and the Japanese and treat our prisoners like animals, like they did. We as Americans held ourselves to a higher standard then and we should do so now.

Andrew

"Oh. So I'm unAmerican because I value American lives and those of innocents over the terrorists?
You're the one who blames America and those who defend her."

The question was not American lives v. terrorist lives. It was American lives v. American values.

I wouldn't call you unAmerican, Herb. But you might want to consider the words earlier in this thread by a poster to this forum that I have a fair amount of respect for:


"Author: Herb
Monday, February 05, 2007 - 8:24 pm

Why else did our founding fathers give their lives for freedom? They voiced these words:

Don't Tread On Me.
Live Free Or Die.
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death."



Care to comment?

Herb said>>>>
Oh. So I'm unAmerican because I value American lives and those of innocents over the terrorists?
You're the one who blames America and those who defend her.

So all the dead young AMERICAN kids that have died in Iraq for an UNjust war that should have NEVER happened is value to you??? All the Iraqi women and children dead is value to you???? WTF???
We??? Blame America?? Are you that messed up in the head??? OMG!
Whatever Herb is smoking it must be a neo-CONer standard. Insannity and Bimbo must smoke the same crap.
WOW!

FOUNDING FATHERS of AMERICA not IRAQ! NOT IRAN! AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come on Herb!

Oh. So I'm unAmerican...

Well, your statements in this are contradictory. They contradict each other, as has been pointed out, and with our founders intent, along with a lot of social progress.

I know you value the country and I'm sure you see it's worth, but I'm not convinced you've reconsiled (however you spell it) that with your fear and desire to eliminate terror.

Andrew2, jingoistic is a new one on me! I had to go look it up. I can honestly say I've never seen or heard that word used before!

From Wikipedia;
Jingoism is chauvinistic patriotism, usually associated with a hawkish political stance. In practice, it refers to sections of the general public who advocate bullying other countries or using whatever means necessary (usually military force) to safeguard a country's national interests.

LOL! I looked up Jingoism before I posted and read the same Wikipedia definition. I'm using the word in the former sense, "Jingoism is chauvinistic patriotism" and not in the "usually" sense. I stand by the word as I used it.

Andrew

A brief digression:

I have an old favorite tee-shirt with our very first flag printed proudly across the front with the words, "Don't Tread On Me" emblazoned under it.

Perhaps someone can explain why I have been given the stink eye by a lot of reactionary flag wavers in the last six years for my shirt.

Is it because they think it is the flag of a dangerous revolution? Or were they reading too much Strauss to catch that day in history class?

It seems that no matter which King George is in charge, over last the 200+ years, that flag still makes them nervous.

Andrew2, There should be a daily award for the person that comes up with the most obscure word and uses it correctly in a post!

I nominate you for today's award!

IMHO, it's intimidation.

The sheeple need strong and clear leadership. They need to know somebody is doing the hard thinking for them, so they can just be who they are and do (largely) what they want.

When you wear that shirt, you are declaring yourself as a non-sheeple! Of course, that's perfectly ok here, but you wouldn't know it from the majority of messaging and social conditioning we receive on a daily basis.

Finally, that image has been marginalized as part of the conditioning. It's associated with a lot of bad elements, fringe, etc...

When I was in grade school, we talked about that flag and what "Don't Tread On Me" meant. My kids today received no such instruction. In fact, civics in general have been sharply diminished!

(Why is this exactly? Sometimes I feel like the man from another planet when discussing these things with educators! --my current theory is attorneys, but it could be other things.)

It's been quite the struggle to get my kids to be able to differentiate false choices from actual choices, and the battle to conform is not over just yet!

**And I'm not saying conformity is a bad thing, because it isn't. Society needs this. But, everyone of us should make our conformity a reasoned choice that is defensible, otherwise we surrender that which our founders secured for us.

If this reasoned choice is not clear, asking why is not only the right thing to do, our nation demands it of us, for our mutual benefit.

Nice shirt, just don't try and fly with it on!

"Sheeple!" I love it. It reminds me of a term my friends and I coined years ago to describe hipsters and punks: "The uniforms of non-conformity."

Of course it could just a easily refer to any of the mass-marketed "movements" embraced by the "me" generation.

In answer to your question about civics education, Missing... I believe the reason it has decreased is because

1) Americans (except Herb ;-) have grown complacent about American Republican democracy - they believe it has worked for so long, it will therefore keep working just fine. This "experiment" as the founding fathers called it, is concluded and the results are in - American democracy is perfectly designed, self-correcting, and foolproof, so we no longer are required to exercise due diligence in it's preservation. The fall of Soviet Communism probably helped create this perception.

2) The key mission of public education has shifted dramatically from teaching citizenship to making students employable. Look at the way that "career-based" education has become the dominant theme in the upper grades. And what is the #1 reason behind most student's educational decisions? To get a better job. Understanding the Constutition does not make a person a better, more obedient worker! (the cynic might say it could even do the opposite!)

Littlesongs: That's a great description. It would apply to the attire of every generation.

Agree! As the poster says:

Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.

I always think this when I see the groovy hipsters with the pierced tongues, sleeve tattoos, spiky hair; they're all so alternative but they look exactly the same. nothing's shocking anymore. Well, maybe the split tongue trend, or having those little devil's horn implants under your scalp; Wheee! Look at me!

Credits for "Sheeple" go to Marc Marin, formerly one of the hosts for "Morning Sedition". I freaking love that guy! Funny as heck and full of little bits like that.

Missing civics....

Your first point makes a lot of sense, but for the clear evidence the experiment has not yet run it's full course! Heck, we are still very young as nations go, and we have large gaps in representation on many matters, leaving corporations with a growing advantage. Since they do often contribute to the schools, the rest follows...

(Not happy with this development.)

Our school just started with the academy system. I'm not sure what I think of this yet, but it just reeks of career based education. Generally I'm not happy with that aspect of it, but other elements are a net plus, so I watch and act if need be.

It's very short sighted though. Getting a better job in the shorter term, or the longer term? That's the big question that nearly all young people are totally not equipped to answer. That, of course, is exactly what secondary education is for dammit!

For some kids, it's a solid change that might make a real difference, given wage pressure does not marginalize the targeted jobs. The jury is out on that one right now.

Trading the career based approach for solid education on core reasoning, civics and investigative skills is a huge mistake, IMHO. Sure, we will get more compliant workers for fewer dollars, but we will also marginalize the potential of our future leaders as well.

The cynic in me thinks the elite like it this way because their kids will then have a more clear advantage, but over what and whom?

IMHO, the whole mess will backfire, but we are gonna have to go a full cycle to prove that out and even then, the fingers of blame will be long and numerous.

I second Andrew's nomination! Good word of the day.

Our state standards have also brought with them another wrinkle. I've excluded my kids from these (it's allowed by law) for a lot of reasons. One of them is the tendency to set expectations about learning that are not solid.

I went through something I thought was fairly rare. Two of my kids were below the norm and the school recommended Title 13 testing and that general path. I was shocked at the limited scope of their analysis of the problem!

Essentially, they assumed the school was running fine and that the kids had some issue preventing learning from happening on time. In this, I agreed, but the scope of possibilities boiled down to "let's test your kid and see if they are just stupid.".

Of course, we knew the social issues and worked out our own plan for success. With one kid, repeating an early grade was the answer. (Very difficult to get the school to actually do this, they would rather test, and label instead.)

With the other, it ended up being a matter of priorities and managing expectations to boost self confidence.

A co-worker is struggling with the same thing, as is a neighbor! Seems we've mechanized a lot of the organic people to people elements of education without realizing it. This too is a mistake, IMHO.

For what it's worth, some solid pressure and willingness to engage the school has brought solid results for my kids. They are currently doing fine. When people think about the dollars spent on education and the implications of those choices, I rarely hear this kind of stuff come up.

It's always tech, or waste, or wages for teachers, or something... Honestly, we need more willing bodies and work on the system that lets them build good people, who will one day be taking care of us. If parents don't have the time / won't spend the time to work hard on these things (and a whole lot of them don't / can't), then we either need more dollars or we end up with crappy people.

This seems so obvious, but I'm always amazed at the, "I don't have kids, so I shouldn't pay", or "I want to find my own better school with those dollars", ad nauseum.

Hmmm... maybe we are already feeling the impact of these kinds of decisions now!

Better stop now, as I could write forever on this topic...

One of our finest homegrown educators grew so disgusted, he ran for office. In the few short weeks he has been in Salem, Ben Cannon has already stood up for Oregon's kids. There is hope, but it means rebuilding what was destroyed by fund cutting conservatives and misappropriating liberals.

Children are not merely, "an investment in our future" because that implies profit and loss. Children are our future. Period. I hate to break it to the American people, but you get what you pay for. Caveat emptor.

My parents read to me every single day. I had no television beyond PBS and when I outgrew Sesame Street, it was removed until I was ready for high school. I was taught to think for myself and look at homework as a starting point, not the whole picture. I was lucky to have some wonderful teachers in my life, both in my family and at school. I wish I were the rule, but I am the exception and it makes me sad.

Today's children, most born by choice and some planning, are merely chattle. They are to be shuttled off to the day care kennel once weaned and are of little concern beyond the financial until they graduate from college.

Discipline and communication have been replaced by temporarily revoking a few high tech privileges and giving brief lip service. The little time families have together is spent watching the boob tube and shopping for clothes.

In a divorce, most of the argument is how much mad money one partner will give another -- ostensibly for the children. One of my best pals growing up had his mother gamble away his child support for years without the state batting an eye.

Children are little people. They deserve at least to be treated like human beings. We could have a great generation someday, if those who bear kids, will also rear and care for their brood. Until then, we will continue to have to repair the damage that passive parenting has wrought.

(I agree that this is a thread unto itself.)

To return to the question of torture and all being fair in love and war, I have one question for the supporters of torture.

The last war that America won fair and square was also the last war we engaged in without the covert or overt use of torture.

Do any of you see this as a coincidence?

Vocabulary and education also being hot points, I am not being facetious when I say that the following statement is quite poetic, eloquent and very American. Here is the quote:

"Human rights are fucking human rights, period!"

"I can't truly understand a mind that can subscribe to both the teachings of Jesus Christ and the idea that torture is "OK" in some cases."

Maybe we need to examine a few teachings of Jesus Christ directly from His Word, and not from our imagination:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)

"But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

"The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.” {2nd John 2:13-16)

If Jesus used a whip on guys who merely sold pigeons in church, WHAT WOULD HE HAVE DONE TO THOSE WHO BLOW UP THE INNOCENT?

Jesus was no pacifist and He did not give evil a pass. We shouldn't either, especially those who would kill innocent citizen non-combatants.

Herb

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Classic democrat response.

Herb

"The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.” {2nd John 2:13-16)

If he were alive today what would Jesus do about corporate theologians with massive cable networks and palatial tax free churches on large tracts of prime real estate?

Obviously, the Bible can say whatever any of us want it to.

"Jesus was no pacifist"

I really thought I had heard the most stupid thing in my life already. I am unpleasantly surprised.

Herb, please do me a favor. Please let us all have our spiritual lives without any guidance.

In return, I will promise to only quote the Bible on issues of extreme hypocrisy.

"If he were alive today what would Jesus do about corporate theologians with massive cable networks and palatial tax free churches on large tracts of prime real estate?

Obviously, the Bible can say whatever any of us want it to."

As Mrs. Clinton would say, "Not so fast."

Honestly, is that what you think? That the Bible can say anything? I point out three Scriptures that support my point, and all you can do is throw your hands up and say it means nothing?

If I did that with a liberal, you guys would call me on it in a heartbeat. At least be consistent.

Besides, why would you think Jesus would agree with money-changers OR 'corporate theologians?'
Are they mutually exclusive? Of course not. I'm not sure why you have a problem with cable networks; are the Gospels only to be spread via pony or burro? Cable networks are fine for porn but not for God's Word?

You guys are funny.

Herb

I grew up in a church that dissected, reinterpreted and paraphrased the scriptures to suit it's needs. In talking to many folks from all faiths, I have found that to be a common thread in all theological study everywhere.

When the Christians have the most printed book in the history of our planet, it is foolish to pretend that they are lacking exposure. No congregation has to do anything beyond serving their neighbors in need to get the point across. Everything else is purely secular vainglory.

Let's let Chris_Taylor weigh in, since he knows his bible at least as well as you do, Herb. Since you two frequently disagree on the meaning of certain parts of scripture, I'd say that proves that there numerous ways to interpret the parts of the bible.

Andrew

Chris is more than welcome to weigh in.

Herb

"I really thought I had heard the most stupid thing in my life already."

Fine. I provide three separate examples when Jesus was anti-pacifist. You want to show me why that's not the case?

Or when it comes to providing support for your view are you simply going to dismiss it with a wave of the hand and expect us to believe you?

The left won't allow conservatives to do that. So who's the REAL hypocrite?

Herb

I sense that this has gotten far afield and rather tense, so let us at least touch on the original topic. I like everyone here and know a few of you outside of the forum, so let me lighten it up a little. I promise almost everyone will laugh.

As Mrs. Clinton would say, "Billy. Billy-boo-boo. Come to bed."

<grunt>

"I'm wearing the black dress..."

<grunt>

"Not so fast."

You do mean the words, written down by man, in an attempt to capture the greater word of god, don't you Herb?

We have the words of Matthew, Luke and John, not anything we know to be direct communication from Jesus, or God. Additionally, what you wrote above has been translated and is essentially useless without also including a solid discussion of the historical context.

It's hearsey. I don't mean that in a bad way, but a very real way.

If you are gonna quote the bible again, at least represent it correctly huh?

I don't mind a discussion about Jesus, but I do mind one that is nothing more than a bumper sticker, "God says so". And it's not even that! It's really, "Somebody a long time ago, that I don't know, says God's son says so!"

Jesus was a liberal Herb, and I'm still calling you on it!

I don't think Jesus would have a problem with money changers, provided they are not committing the crime of usury --which our own governemnt has regulated and taxed! I do believe he would have a huge problem with people acting in ways that are not defensible, and an even bigger one with them attaching his name to the whole affair.

Corporate theologians would not be his thing either. Either the witness of divinity stands on it's own or it doesn't. Pumping a ton of money into getting the word out does not do him justice in any way shape or form.

When I attended sunday school (and I do remember my lessons, though I do not believe today), being a witness to the greater glory of god was all about living your life in such a way that made the teachings compelling. Living in a way that made others say, "Yeah, that's something for me, can I learn more?" BTW: I do not believe because I did not see people living that life and their deeds, in general, did not cause me to say, "Can I learn more?"

Coming here to this little place we all share and defending our horrible deeds as a nation is an insult to all of us, and you do it nearly every day too!

Jesus would not start wars without solid justification. That means finding ways to avoid them at all costs. Having his people witness in the way I just wrote goes a long way toward that goal Herb.

He would not ask his people to torture others --ever. Committing one sin to address another is wrong --it's always wrong, and it has to be, otherwise we've no way to make sense of the world.

This much was obvious to a young kid wondering about the world in sunday school long ago. It's not that much of a stretch to ask it of one's peers today.

So, Herb I'm asking! Really asking you to reconsider your approach when you end up on the less than defensible side of a discussion.

Your average decent little kid knows that torture is wrong, unless they've got people like you tellinig them it's all ok, because we don't want the really bad people to come and get us!

Which really bad people Herb? How do we know, if we do the same bad things they do?

I'm asking you to bring some solid support to the table, for the idea that torture is ok, or consider that it just might not be ok and learn something from your friends here who entertain you day after day.

I have always believed that Jesus sacrificed himself. He did not die trying to protect himself or in defense of his country. Only a true pacifist could ever have relayed the Beatitudes to potentially violent crowds. A warrior of the sword dies fighting, while a warrior of the mind never truly dies.

True martyrdom is vividly spelled out in his story. We live in a violent world where his teachings and the definition of martyrdom have both been twisted by opportunists and extremists. One could almost argue that much of our current conflict is due to the collision of the dangerous myths that replaced the true meaning of the words.

Missing.

First you say the Bible is essentially unreliable, a fable and that you don't believe it.

Then, you tell me what YOU believe the Bible says about Jesus...even though you don't believe it.

Then, I'm told that even though I provide support using the most authoritative source about Jesus, the Bible, you don't believe it.

Then, you admit you're 'not a believer anymore,' yet you claim to have more insight about Jesus than someone who actually believes Him.

You got some splainin' to do.

Herb

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I claimed no special insight.

You've essentially said Jesus would condone the use of torture.

What I said was essentially, I call BS because his support of torture would be in conflict with a lot of other elementary teachings. I brought up the childhood bit to illustrate in a completely honest and common sense way, just how elementary!

I don't believe today, but that does not change the core dilemma one bit. Actually, the most correct statement is that I simply don't know and am perfectly ok with that right now. Maybe I'll learn something new and that will change, but that's how it is, right now, today.

I was actually trying to be decent, set that non-belief aside, and discuss the matter with you from the same perspective.

It comes down to this for me:

How can the son of god justify torture period?

Who are you really kidding Herb? Has being a Christian changed in some fundemental way, that I missed out on? Had anyone said that to me at any time, when I did believe, I would have laughed them out of the room!

I'm laughing you out of the room now!

Do you realize this is the same kind of justification, you've said the Islamic Extremists bring to the table?

Are you a member of the Christian Taliban Herb?

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (I think that's right --I don't often quote the Bible.)

This brief passage is related to the one you cited. Essentially, there is a lot of context in that chapter that you are leaving out.

I like this one because it says that we must rise above the lowness of our enemies. It does not say do whatever you need to to eliminate them. It says be better than them.

The beauty of this one is that no matter how you parse it, torture is not part of the story. The one you cited could go many ways, and with that comes weakness in terms of your torture claim.

Think hard about it and get back to me. (Set the wine glass down for the night first, and get yourself some coffee.)

Edit: I made some edits to the above, hope you re read it before posting a reply!

Missing, I thought you made some very good points.

Herb, The whole premise of this conversation was a pile of steaming hooey you posted about a President who is not enough of an elder statesman for me to care about anymore.

Now we are asking, "Who would Jesus Torture?" That ought to be a rhetorical question without an affirmative answer from anyone.

I am just as guilty of digression as anyone else, and by and large, most of us have tried to be civil to this point. I think that the only holy thing to do is to let this thread die.

"Classic democrat response".

Brilliant response there yourself, Herb!

It seems like you are becoming more like a certain recently departed forum member almost daily.

Here's what I perceive you doing lately:

A. Don't reply or acknowledge. especially when proven wrong. Even when asked to reply.
B. Reply, and then dodge;
C. Dodge by bringing up Nixon, abortion or bible instead.
D. Never take responsibility for outdated, questionable, selective, and/or erronious data, etc. that you supplied.
E. Squirming/pouting and then lashing out at poster.
F. Never admit you were wrong.
G. Never admit that someone here gave you something to consider, let alone, give an inch.
H. Never apologize.
I. Repetition of same predictable Herbisms, whether they're appropriate or not.

That's why I posted "ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"

I'm bored with the same old "blah blah blah bible blah whilst blah blah Nixon blah blah hamfistedadhominumlilyliveredtypicaldemlibspin.

You can have the last word here, and then I agree, your thread should die. Soon.

Move along folks, nothing to see here...

(And stop stealing my "I Love Lucy" line, please.)

We go from Nixon to everyone but Herb and his EXTREME Right winged Bible thumpers being UNAmerican to Jesus Christ.

This one should probably die, but I need to say a coupla things first:

I like you Herb. I don't know why, but I do.

The Christian Taliban bit was rhetorical. Just wanted you to think a little bit and maybe avoid compartmentalizing some things.

The wine glass bit was supposed to be humor, as in "Are you high?" Could also be, "Come on, you are kidding me right?"

Having strong faith is ok. It is something I encourage and wish I still had, frankly.

A discussion like this should reinforce and improve that faith, given we don't get too hot under the collar.

Finally, I was just fine with it. No anger here, just a very serious query. If Jesus would have condoned torture, this has a lot of ramifications. I'm curious about that as I always am, because I need to see that side of things, for my own good and growth. So, in a morbid and honest way, I'm eager to see solid support for this brought to the table. It would explain a lot.

So here we are at what is probably the end of this thread. I'm ok to continue, given that we are not in a state where harm is being done. If harm is or is about to be done, then ending it here is just fine too.

"You've essentially said Jesus would condone the use of torture."

Catholics are big on making the distinction that there are 'sins of commission' and 'sins of commission.'

I don't carry water for the pope, but they have that right. I personally believe that by allowing innocent people to die by sitting on one's hands and not acting, it is a sin of omission.

I'm not saying Jesus would promote torture. But once more, if He used a cat o' nine tails against people selling animals in church, what would He do to someone about to kill an innocent young mother or little kid? He also told us that it would be better to have a millstone tied around one's neck than to harm a child.

No wonder our liberal friends are uncomfortable with this topic. It exposes weak-kneed naivete,' disguised as compassion. Your compassion is misplaced, folks. Go with protecting the innocent and you won't go wrong.

And you're wrong to say that Jesus was a liberal. Jesus was a radical.

Herb

Yes, but there are a lot of potential actions!

That does not make the case for torture being ok, it only makes the case for one to act, which I agree with.

Being forceful in one's actions is not a bad thing either.

However you've not really made the case for torture being ok. This is the same but what if, fear based stuff you always say.

There are alternatives to torture. And we don't know that torture will yield anything that would be worth it. It's a harm on a gamble.

And if we are going to go with proteting the innocent, how come we are killing a lot of them every day in a war we failed to properly justify?

It's not as easy as you make it out to be.

Unless you've got something more than a strong emotional appeal, we are essentially done.

I'll continue working on being better than my enemies. I know that's a solid and defensible path in life.

Condoning torture isn't, unless you've got something with some more substance to bear on the discussion.

Oh, he was a radical too! Very progressive in many of his acts and deeds. My kind of guy, frankly!

I know this is simplistic, but...

I'm having a hard time picturing Jesus waterboarding a moneychanger, or anyone else for that matter.

Herb said>>>>
And you're wrong to say that Jesus was a liberal. Jesus was a radical.

But herb! You yourself have called Libs radicals!

Post #146 on this thread would go here if I had bothered to come up with something to say.

"I'm having a hard time picturing Jesus waterboarding a moneychanger, or anyone else for that matter."

What's the difference between using a cat-o-nine tails [or a whip, like Indiana Jones], and making someone listen to loud rap music for 12 hours straight? If it was for a short enough duration, some would argue the whip might be less severe.

Herb

This is why trying to justify things with the Bible just does not work. The book itself is not consistant. I found scripture that supports my view, Herb found his, others could find theirs.

We could expand this with historical context and probably weed out a few, but still we would be left with an inconsistant set of core ideas that gets us nowhere.

At the end of the day we've still a human rights dilemma to grapple with. We've had worse wars than this and managed to handle them without having to torture people. We won those too and had solid justification on our side.

I thought I would entertain this to see where it all leads. (nowhere really)

Clearly, Jesus is who we think he is. For the future with me, that's a non-starter. Was worth some discussion though. Let's try it this way, but keep the theme of faith running for a bit:

Our founders had enough faith and conviction to do what it took to form this nation. They took their respective values, and reasoned through those to begin this nation.

Do we still have that same faith and conviction today?

IMHO, I believe our way is the right way. ---or at the least it's the best way that has evolved so far. For me, this is a matter of faith, on par with religion actually.

So, when we face this threat of terror, it is a test of that faith and of conviction.

Do we waver on core human rights or not. Is our way just and true or not? It took sacrifice to get here, clearly it's gonna take more to continue.

Are we up to it or not?

If we endorse torture, surrender huge chunks of the bill of rights, allow our leaders to start wars without solid justification, etc...

,then

we essentially are saying those core things are not worth it, or are not true and or just.

It all then becomes a simple power struggle, with self interest driving things. That's morally relative reasoning, by the way.

On the other hand, if we work hard to preserve those things, then we find solutions to the problems that continue to demonstrate to the rest of the world that it is possible to live under the American system and prevail.

On one extreme, we are really only concerned with our well being, at basically the expense of everyone else. "With us or against us"

On the other, we are saying to the rest of the world, we stand for something no matter what. It may cost us, but we still stand for basic things, will you join us?

These are two very different approaches to a difficult problem.

So, where does your faith lie and do you follow that up with conviction and action?

Are we really ready to say our way is not the best way? Are we willing to become more like the terrorists, so we can be safer, but maybe not as free, or sans the higher ground our founders earned for us?

If we say torture is ok, we then open the door for other nations to do the same. After all none of it matters but protecting ones people right? We lose progress in doing this, thus placing future generations in harms way.

Herb, you did say defaulting to protecting the innocent can't be wrong right? So should we not look to the greater harm for additional guidence in this as well?

When people commit to a path of worship, they often sacrifice a lot for the longer term picture don't they? How is this different from what we are doing today?

Torture is a short term, high risk, tactic that might save some lives, and it might not. It is known to lower the bar though. We trade some social and moral progress, for some perception of security and safety.

Working harder to solve the problem, might end up with some wrongful deaths in the shorter term, but will also further advance social and moral progress in the longer term, which in turn is very likely to save a whole lot more lives.

The brutal part of this whole thing happens to be lives being lost in the conflict no matter what.

Again, where is your faith?

Can we address torture, or must we just live with it? Is is possible to diminish it to the point where the greater good is worth the hassle, or are we just doomed to always be fighting it out?

I say we can marginalize torture. We can do it and still be Americans. It will cost us, just as other conflicts have, but we will be better for it, and with us a lot of the world as well, in the end.

This for me, is a matter of faith. I do not fear the shorter term, because I know we will achieve the longer term success.

Where do you stand in this?

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Herb

That doesn't mean that the converse is also true:

"All that is necessary for evil to be defeated is for good men to do everything and anything."

I kinda get the sense you believe this.

Yep.

I feel that too.

Herb?

By their works ye shall know them.

Herbert M.

It's a good thing we are saved by grace then.

Absolutely. And that especially includes me.

Herb

*the bugler lifts the horn to his mouth and slowly, solemnly and softly plays taps*

Goodbye thread.

Aside from my initial post, up to now I've simply answered questions raised here. For some strange reason, liberals sure seem to want this thread to die.

If so, I hope it's because not leaning on slimeball murderers who are about to kill innocents makes you uncomfortable. That way, at least we know your conscience is working.

Herb

Thank you Herb, but I was confident the consciences of all posters, including yours, was intact before the thread started.

Goodbye thread.