Chickens, Aunty Belle is old fashioned enough to think we'uns ought to have manufacturing of crucial goods here at home, to follow the Founders' warning to avoid "foreign entanglements" and to be as self-suficient as possible. I'se opposed to NAFTA, WTO and all looky-like treaties that compromise our self-reliance.
But the world IS interconnected beyond trade issues when a nation (or two or ten) can aim a nuke-head missile at our kindergarteners sittin' in they lil' desks.
It is a dern folly to think if they was a chicken in every pot in every hut in the world, that wars would cease. A despot always gits on the loose somewheres and has to be dealt wif.....or an evil system of thought like naziism or communism....
Fightin' is here forever (lessen' youse believin' in Second Comin' and some of us do).
Fightin' has its place. If the Iraqi people had stood up and fought back they would have disloged Saddam long ago...if the moderate Iranians stood up now and fought back, we would not be facin' a new "international crisis." If Americans had honored they promise to the Hungarians maybe Eastern Europe would have been free long before 1994. IF Americans had smarts they'd let Mc Arthur whack North Korea while he could, and we would'n be facing Kim Jong Ill today...
It is a greater evil to FAIL to FIGHT when fightin' is necessary than it is to send in troops to quiet down a threat to the whole world.
Now the thang is that some folks doan want no fightin' a'tall, thinkin' they can sit in a circle wif the new moon risin' and sing Kum-ba-ya and mystically hold hands across the world...despots jes' love those folks.
Other folks doan want no fightin' lessen the man/woman sending in the troops is squeaky clean when they look at him under their OWN political lens...despots love those folks too.
Ain't no perfect pols in this heah world. But iffin' we waits for the "perfect" man, the despots will have carved up the globe, an we'uns will be totin' water on our backs.
People doan evolve as a social reality. When ya' reads Plato or Tacitus or Dante youse knowin' right off that you ain't so smart after all, and in fact nobody ya knows is as smart as these old dead --LONG dead --men. All thas' evolved is technology--not the Heart of Man.
So some of ya'll is gonna try to fling "women's rights" across the screen to "prove" we've evolved socially--no sale. Women can vote, but it doan change the outcome of world politics. And on balance, women ain't done nuthin' but abdicate they true influence while sycophantin' around in trousers pretendin' that they can out man a man.(Lawdy!Aunty Belle has to turn her haid the other way when she looks at that Clinton thang.)
Ladies --not wymyn--can be very significant forces for true change and can be good leaders too--(Thatcher comes to mind, Golda Meir) but they cain't stop fightin' as a method of solvin' some realpolitk's worst troubles.
Men ain't gonna stop it and women ain't either-fightn' has its place in the world.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Youse standin' on the street corner and a robber comes out of the bank holdin' a knife to the throat a child as hostage. Youse got a can o pepper spray in yore purse but'cha hesitatin to use it since it might make the fiend turn on you, too.
Yore neighbor is regularly beatin' the hail out her husband. Youse hearin' em' night after night. The poor sap is black and blue everytime you see him draggin' out the trash. You think, "they must like to get physical, and it ain't none o mah bidness." But when he comes to borrow a cup of sugar, wif a knot on his haid, he confides she is threatenin' to kill the kids if he leaves her. But nobody will believe him on account of she is the mayor. "Get some counseling" you say..."I tried, that's how I got this knot on my head" he replies.
But it ain't yore bidness so ya' keeps yore lip zipped until the TV crew sticks a mike in yore face when kids and dad are all found shot to death next door to ya'.
An you, all pious like, say "why, who knew?" Youse partly ter blame for them dead folks.
Bullies doan never stop on they own account--not neighborhood bullies, not national bullies...you have to fight a bully afore he /she gits loose wif enough juice to cause damage to millions of innocent folks.
Good folks, fightin' is necessary, sometimes. You is yore brother's keeper.
Fight the good fight, fight the war against evil.
About Me
- Aunty Belle
- Aunty Belle is taken from Antebellum, a time of civility and respect fer the foundations of Western Civilization. Y'all can find me rockin' on the porches most days. Be neighborly and come sit a spell. Bring yore dawgs. Mah iced tea is the best, evah.(About yore third visit mah Cracker-speak will become intelligible. I'se sorry iffin' new folks find it odd) We's lighthearted on the Front porch http://abporkrinds.blogspot.com/ so iffin' ya want some high octane debate, jes c'mon around to the Back Porch.http://auntybelles.blogspot.com/
59 comments:
The issue is who defines the bully and how they define the bully. And will we agree on the defintions and identification?
Young people should not be lead into war and a country's resources squandered without a clear understanding of why we're fighting. we don't have that right now. we have been decieved far too many times in the past and far too many times by the Bush administration.
Nope,politicians aren't perfect, nor can they be. But some are worse than others and we've got a real stinker in the White House right now. he lies. he cheats. he breaks the law. and we've got a lot of stinkers in the house and the senate as well. i suppose we get what we deserve - we voted these idiots in.
I will not concede that war is
good; it is sometimes a necessary evil. i am not convinced that the iraqi war was necessary.
and we can't possibly know yet if war with iran is necessary either. too soon to tell yet.
Oh, Bird Chile' by the time we are shur down to the last standing liberal in the blue states, Iran will have done nuked yore hide...and the rest of us too.
War takes serious deliberation--no argument. But supine pacifism that refuses to see legitamte uses of force against truue threats, all in the name of "peace," is pure evil in and of itself, honey. It causes bigger problems--i.e. the North Korean situation.
there's a saying that goes somethin' like 'they came to take the jews, and i stood by and did nothin', they came for the blacks, and i did nothin' [... etc etc ...] when they came for me there was no one left ...'
ok. so maybe i messed it up a bit, but i'm shur you git the idea ...
i agree that sometimes we gots no choice but to defend ourselves ... to sit by and watch our 'brothers' git persecuted, abused, etc ... its plain wrong we all say we doan wanna git involved! well, we's all alive, so we's already involved, ain't we?
politicians are certainly not perfect - they're all a bunch of self serving liars and we should all know that by now ... not convinced the war in iraq was necessary, except for dubya, who likes to play cowboys and indians on the world stage. i see vietnam repeating itself ... i do ...
as for iran, i thinks we best be real real careful how we's proceed with that one. iffin anyone thinkgs they's joking about israel, then they's shur deluded ... the west would be walkin' right into a steaming brown pile of you know what ...
Just say no to Dhimmitude
goodness Ab, you've evoked the slippery slope - an illogical fallacy as you well know.
the steps we are taking right now with iran are appropriate. bombing them today or tomorrow, or next month, or even this year is not.
bombing them just in time to help an election is equally inappropriate, though i don't think that will help the repubs come midterm elections.
but can't you see that the lies bush told about iraq are now coming home to roost with iran? as a whole, congress and the senate, and the citizenry, and the world (cause this is not just a US problem) will be less likely to believe Bush's rationale for engagement with Iran.
Bird, sweetie, did'ja forgit that is was Iran that held Americans--and others--hostage in 1979...uh, that'd be under a Democrat president and over 25 years ago--so t'aint Bush'd party that made Iran what it is today...and their uranium gathering begam long before Bush--so their intent has been there all along.
Looky, not everything that happens on plantet earth is due to America or Bush...Youse gotta a bit of a blind spot on that, I guess...but the nuke program in Iran long predates current administration.
Great controversy but war - been there, done that. I don't believe in 'good' and 'bad', only in experiences and learning, but I think we know enough about war and not nearly enough about peace. "Imagine all the people, livin' life in peace... "
of course the situation with iran predates this administration - but bush's mishandling of iraq limits our ablity to maneuver (sp) with iran.
can't blame carter for the iranian revolution - that situation was in the making before he took office, but you can fault him for his handling of the situation after the fact (though i don't know if anyone could have "handled" that situation better or worse - seems it was really quite our of our control.)
when is it a good time to bomb Iran ? Bird. After they nuke Isreal? will it be ok then?
Helly,
Now is certainly not the right time. We are working back channels.
So many of folks seem jump to the idea that if we don't do something RIGHT NOW we'll not be able to do something later. Or that our only option is to do something RIGHT NOW. And you seem to think that LATER means too late. How silly!We do indeed have a runway of time. Why not use it wisely?
Yes indeed, AB - serious deliberation. You seem to consider the current serious deliberation as "supine pacificism." Not so. It's just plain serious deliberation. And that does take time. We've no need to rush off half-cocked, shooting from the hip - as we have done in Iraq.
We have to exhaust other channels first, even if we think those channels won't work. Then we'll have to bomb facilities. But the Bush administration needs to build a rational case for such an action, needs to convince the American public that bombing is a necessary last resort and needs to convince the international community as well.
but this administration has hampered its ability to do so by its previous lies and misadventures.
and by the way, do you really think the Israelis will allow this to go on too long? No. If we don't bomb, they will. Don't see them rushing off to do so yet - they are also deliberating, planning, using back channels. you don't think "our people" aren't deep in discussions with "their people?"
i think those who are quick to jump to an immediate and premature attack are allowing themselves to be pumped up by the rhetoric coming out of Tehran.
/bark bark bark
that's right jimmay carter is to thank for allowing the ayatollahs to rise to power. isreal will probably bomb iran as before.
aunty, its true we dont manufacture enough of our own goods. if for whatever reason we had to isolate ourselves, we would be in a world of hurt for real stuff -since in our wealth we have become a service economy. very short sighted for a long view.
its too bad that the taxpayers built the alaskan pipeline so that the little oil we harvest there ships to japan just like our old growth tree lumber. resources are king and we need to hold on to more of our own. and, we shouldnt allow ourselves to be overrun by illegals sucking off the services and breaking the backs of middle america.
peace is a condition that is earned thru victory. standing by and doing nothing when oppressive forces roll in is not a virtue. i am reminded of the newsreels of grown men standing on the streets of paris weeping as the nazi tanks entered......
but thanks to the ugly americans they are free to have contempt for us! yaay!
/grrrrrrrrrrrrrr
of course it will be in october - so the repubs can use that played our old card of not changing whoreses in the middle of a "war" come election day in november.
and no, you are not necessarily arrested and jailed for threatening someone in the US.
regardless, we're not talking about an international situation, not a domestic one.
Hellpig - you are retarded. Us liberals don't mind bombin' the crap out of countries when they deserve it. History is full of those examples. When the cause is just, the rest of the world salutes us instead of resents us. When you go off on a country half-cocked like a drunk cowboy, you tend to piss other countries off and by your very own logic, give them a reason to bomb us with a taste of our own medicine. Also, If liberals had their way, we wouldn't need foreign oil dumb-dumb. Liberals are smarter than punks. Look around - billions of fights are won without a shot being fired. Turn off Rush and pick up a history book or make yourself usefull and go work for the mafia.
There is ALOT of OIL in IRAN.
Just waiting.... for us to get through IRAQ.....
Almost there.
That was the plan.
Belle, come over honey chile and tell me your sould number....
I wonder if you is the elisive 22?
love,
Contessa
Hey ya'll...no time fer porch sittin' this weekend, Granny is in the hospital--on the mend, now thank Lawdy!
Seem's like I been missin' some fun, heah. Ya'll doan need me much no how--yuouse can carry things on jes' fine wifout me. I'se happy 'bout that, too.
Natcherly, I got an opinion or two, too.
First thang, how long should we wait when it is clear what the intent is when another nation (known to be run by militabt nutcases) declares they aim to smudge out a whole group of folks?
Does anyone wonder how many people mighta been saved if we went in to WWII sooner?
Second thang, pets--Forest Light you especially-- if they ain't no "good" or "Bad" only experiences and learnin' why does anything matter a'tall? I mean, if being a street person is not "bad" then why does we try to hep em? Build sheters for em'? WHy not jes' let em have that experience and learnin' (I guess that'd be "experiencial learnin'"?)
If nuthin'is "bad" or "good" why do we worry about gettin' sick, or fired, or abandoned or set on fire?
If nuthin', not even war, is "bad" then Forest Light, why cain't we all jes' be mean and thievin' and run red lights and kick the dawg, and rob banks when we sees a killer pair of Jimmy Choo's ya wants?
If nuthin' is "bad" honey, I could jes' kill ya for your kidney since mah friend needs one...but'cha won't mind I s'pose since it'll be a learnin' fer ya'?
But youse thinkin' "peace" is sompin' we doan know about? GUess not--since Saddam told us his nation was at peace---and Kim Jong Ill tells us that his nation is peaceful. Khaddfi too...hmmn? well, my learnin' tells me I would not like the experience of "peace" under ole' KIM...
Bird, thanky for your remarks on the Front Porch...but who is that anon? Assume it ain't SA.
Contessa Infinitessima, I'll be right over....
OH!! Wait....I had more'n two thoughts.
Contessa,baby, now now..this heah oil thang--I'se gonna write a page or two on this soon..but fer now, Iran has lots of oil--but it is CHINA....C H I N A who is after the Iranian oil.
Looky folks, USA has PLENTY of oil. No kiddin'. We buys it now so as to not use the reserves but we gots plenty and plenty more in shale even if/when we use the Anwar stash.
We ain't in Iraq to git at Iran's oil or Iraq's oil. Shur cheaper to jes' buy tha dang stuff ya know?
We coulda bought every drop of Iraq's oil for the price we's spendin' to rebuild that nation
...jes' think deeply on this oil thang...the price of war is far more than 300 dollar barrels of oil!
Forest Light, if liberals had their way we wound't need foreign oil? Nope--we wouldn't on account of they doan want to oil to be used a'tall--they wanna be all hybrid. Unrealistic, as ususal. Libs have ideas that are great on paper, never practical.
And Hail-pig, the Dawg is right! And youse right--libs will smile when the muslims hack 'em ter death...
ANd Bird, serious deliberation is Aunty's style, and I does expect Tel Aviv will pop 'em afore we'uns need to...but iffin' Iran jumps de gun and Israel is nuked, I hope it ain;t a liberal in the chair, who says we still got deliberate. We will need a
fast draw and no deliberatin'.
Sigh...back to hospital to check on Granny--ya'll please carry on.
/bark bark bark
aunty i am really looking forward to the report on what we found china up to in afganistan! who was it that did oil for food deals behind the backs of the UNSC? break it down for 'em as you do so well. real simple like, like you wuz talking to us retards. howl!!
forest light:
howwwwwwwllllll!
imagine dont make it so. i keep imagining what i am going to do with my lotto money but i never get to do it actually. and damn, i was gonna give you at least a half a mil!
look at the discord on this page how you gonna pull it all together?
you got the hutu's and the tootsies, the doo-doos, the sufis, the yang yangs, the crips, the latin lords, the flat as a boards, the sunni's and the sikh's the unibomber and the bird killing kitties!!!!!!!!!
/grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
/bark bark bark
not to mention that john lennon got snuffed out by one, count 'em, one, FAN of the great man himself. imagine that!
/howl
Forest Light said... Also, If liberals had their way, we wouldn't need foreign oil
Where the hell you been the last 30 years Libs are the reason we are dependant on foriegn oil
no new refineries
no drilling
no research
All the fault of the Libs
Liberal Hipocrite pull your head out and stop reading the NY Times
The reason we wouldn't need the oil is you would have us all riding bikes like china
Forest Light is Ardlair
/bark bark bark
hell, forest light isnt ardlair.
/grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
i detest arguments that are made on sweeping generalities and ad hominem attacks. actually - those aren't arugments at all; rather, they are indicators of a lack of critical thinking. this kind of weak thinking is an insidious disease that erodes our democracy.
i still see no reason to rush into a bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities. Depending on where you get your information from, the Iranians are at the LEAST a year away (and some say 3-5 years) from creating nuclear weapons. So why the rush to bomb now, or in october?
Now is indeed the time for deliberation. For diplmacy, for working the international community. We have the time to think, persuade(not the Iranians,but a goodly portion of the rest of the world) plan, coordinate.We will probably have to bomb, so let's do it right and not go off half-cocked and create even more of a mess.
Those of you intent on bombing post haste are also intent on misinterpreting the liberal point of view I express (and which is shared by many other liberals) which is a tactical error - after all - I, like many other liberals, clearly see the threat and danger in the Iranian situation and also agree that something will have to be done. but many of you seem so stuck in a limited view of the world, you cannot even recognize an ally when you see one and are intent on alienating such an ally.
What a pity. Makes it very difficult to stand together as Americans against what is so clearly a threat.
/bark bark bark
bird,
i dont know who you are referring to with regard to the ad hominem attacks and wanting to bomb iran. for me i am talking more about seeing these guys for what they are really about.
and i said it before, i at least have enough respect for them to take them at their word. they say, pretty much every day, that they intend to wipe israel off the map. why not take a hard look at them? im not advocating action this moment....diplomacy is happening now (at least on our end) all i am saying is listen to what they are telling us. just hear it, nothing more. that should be enough.
why does that = a lack in critical thinking?
/grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
/bark bark bark
if you care to know:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20567_Iraqi_Cleric_on_Al_Jazeera-_This_Arab_Islamic_Nation_Must_Obtain_a_Nuclear_Bomb&only
watch the video from their own broadcast!!!
a teaser:
Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Al-Baghdadi discusses the annihilation of America, Muslim conquest of the world, and his support for nuclear weapons for Islamic nations, on Al Jazeera television.
if you think we "have this coming" as americans dont bother. their excuse for their actions is that we killed all the native americans.
/grrrrrrrrrrrrrr
K9 Bird won't read or accept anything supporting the views of the mainstream world she believes the MSM isn't controlled by libs
In my book if you don't support the war on terror you are Pro-Terrorist
If you support the leaking of the nations secrets being exposed you are Anti-American
If you worry more about the prisoners of war you are Anti-American
If you complain about high fuel prices and are a lefty you are a hipocrite
If you think illegal aliens do the jobs Americans won't you are an idiot
If you believe our social services should extend to law breaking illegal aliens you are a socialist
Illegal aliens kill more american civilians per year then the total casualties in Iraq
Libs are the biggest hipocrites and racists in America
The same people complaining about the NSA are the same people they blamed the US for poor intelligence on 9/11
The left wants America to just forget 9/11 never happened and wants us to just move on!
The left believe that illegal aliens have a right to vote because they are naive enough to believe that the Illegal aliens will vote Dem and are willing to sacrifice our sovereignty for the vote
ect...................
Hoo-whee!
Looky folks, this heah is the problem:
Islam is using us against each other--an' silly pronouncements such as concern for native Americans presumes we's ingnorant about the indigionous folks wiped out for over a millennia by islamic armies. Ya see? They think we's STOOPID. They's a laughin over how easy it is to set us agaainst each other.
So, Bird, Libs want to do "something" but doan't say what, while conservatives want to solve the problem--not with bombs if it can be avoided, but with 'em if it need be.
I'ma gonna say the obvious: the time fer delicacy is gone, and hard edged reality must be met with a harder edge solution.
Now, I'se still hopeful that Israel will get the job done first...but iffin we move BEFORE they's operative we are gonna be guilty of the gross deaths of millions of innocent people.
Nat'cherly the Iranians lead us to think that they are a year or five out from gettin' they act together--hogwash. Did'ja forgit
Sun Tzu?
Now about diplomacy--that is the art
of letting them have things your way.
Of course, that assumes that "they"
come from a worldview/viewpoint that resonates with yours--na' muslims don't. (Americanized muslims is no
test of the muslims that will kill your AmMus firends along wif the rest of us , Bird Beauty.)
Last thought : it is worse than stoopid to impute to Muslims our own thought processes--it is arrogant. THe K-9 is right, we ought to do them the honor of believin' them when they speak. Instead, some of us insist on arrogantly imputing to muslims our own worldview.
Oh, Dawg, Dawg...I'll get to the China thang, thanks fer the reminder.
The problem is the enemy within
Hail-Pig, AMEN!
"...This is the age of emotion, not analysis."—Thomas Sowell (speaking on gas prices, but the point applies to this heah discussion.)
Well well, Ardlair, so the fishin' was jes' too dull in yore loch, so yer came on ove heah to cast your line?
Hee Hee. You'll git more'n ya can reel in.
/bark bark bark
always ends up in the same place with you ardlair no matter what is said, or how correct the observations may be.
how would you define yourself without Christianity to despise and blame? for an atheist you sure do drone on about it every chance you get. and for the record you might try the reams of blogs that make the same observations that are written by atheists...but you know this.
/grrrrrrrrrr
John Q. Adams:
“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he [Muhammad] connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”
/bark bark bark
its fashionable to rail against the pig now, but when the shitstorm comes (a la ardlair's prediction) they'll be running to him like school girls for protection. and, he'll rise to the job with unwavering resolve. he needs no defense from the dog though. he knows what time it is.
/grrrrrrrrrrrrr
Aunty Belle, I like this blog. The liberals here are dumb as hell like they are everywhere (they're all experts on Islam but have never read a single book on it - I've read ten and am still going). The conservatives here like Hellpig are straight to the point and right as rain. God bless you all!
Ardlair said:
Arlair says:
"What an amusing and frightening little discussion you have all been having in this little den of christian malice."
My response: Yeah, we have the tendency to have malice to assholes who fly planes into skyscrapers and whack off the heads of Christian schoolgirls just for fun.
Ardlair: "Hellpig seemed to think Nazism was dead. Tis not.
It is alive and well and living in 'Christian' right wing republicanism in the US."
Me: Cute, Ardlair (should be "Hot Air". You can't argue or debate, so you express broad generalities and insults without producing a single example or fact. Intellectually, you're a loser.
Ardlair: "Where the only solution, it seems, is violence.
Where a liberal is someone who disagrees with you.
I really don't have the energy to extend the list.
Debate, as I've noted here before, is not possible with dogmatists."
Me: Especially when you don't have a single fact right or don't have a clue about what is happening in the world, hey Ardlair?
If Ardlair is the best the Left has got I will stay home and send my pooch to debate them.
Oh heavens, I must collect my wits here...
K9 - I was referring to Hellpig's sweeping genralities and ad hominen attacks on liberals. that's just plain bigoted bullshit. i, like many other liberals, see the Iranian situation for exactly what it is. but I also see that we need to pull the rest of the world on our side - otherwise - we will have nothing but flack and horrible consequences when we bomb (which we will and must do - but not yet.)we have a window of opportunity here - to not only eliminate the iranian threat, but pull the majority of the world with us - on our side - ready to cooperate with us, do what WE want and think is best. Now tell me, wouldn't that be a pretty good thing for our country - to get international cooperation? think of the ramifications of that - the captial that will gain us. we are stymied in many ways by lack of international cooperation-why not use this as an opportunity to get others on our side. others that have previously not been there. if we can't pull it off - no matter - we bomb anyone. but let's make hay out of this opportunity, for crying out loud.
how short-sided can all these freaking conservatives and warmongerers be? (i love the word freaking lately - sorry - so un-academic of me.)
and again,aunty belle, you refuse to see that we are on the same side. i just want to be smarter about this.
same with you hellpig. we have an opportunity here to bomb the heck out of iran AND look like the good guy. this is a pr dream if we handle it properly. but half-cocked idiots like YOU (yeah, an ad hominment attack - call me a hypocrite - I don't care) would have us squander this opportunity.
are you all freaking idiots? geesh. a god-damned LIBERAL has to tell you how to play this game? UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!
Ah, Hail-Pig, I'se noticing that the "new" ,"reformed" Yoo-knighted Nations
Human Rights Council features that great Human Rights defender, Cuba.
Let that fact sink on in, chillens, when ya thinks about the "international community".
Well, Hidy-Do Stogie, so pleased ter have you set a spell on the Back Porch. An' bring yer pooch iffin' ya wants to.
Youse a reader on Islam, huh? Well I'd appreciate some titles. I done read Spencer and Lewis, Karen Armstrong, and now Whalid Phares. Who should I add? (And thanky again fer that fire tipped riposte 'bout Sherman...We'uns have L O N G memories 'round heah.)
(Uh...Sweet Shoat, Aunty loves ya enough to kiss ya, but chile' I really does have tender eyes and ears. can ya forgive me fer being jes' too anti-modern for those most descriptive of four letter words?)
Pig,
Look who's calling the kettle black. As you well know, I generally refrain from sweeping generalities and ad hominem attacks, and when I do employ them, it's out of frustration and I point out the departure to readers.
You, on the other hand, use such tactics on a regular basis.
You state I have hate and intolerance for everything nonleft. Completely inaccurate.Where the heck did you get that?
I'd say it's the reverse - you cannot tolerate anything that doesn't jive with your view of the world.
You say I want to wait 10 years to bomb Iran - when did I say that? Never.
I am weary of this conversation which is no conversation at all. You are not listening - only going on and on promoting your idealogy and dogma. And by doing so, you miss the opportunity to build bridges and create allies and recognize common ground. You'd rather continue railing against "liberals" than discuss the issue at hand in an intelligent manner.
Pig, you are so stuck in your idealogy you can't see anything else - can't see the world clearly.
And thus discussion with you becomes a useless enterprise that quickly becomes void even of its entertainment value.
And as the general climate here now is unreceptive to a reasoned debate - well, this Bird's winging out of here -
Flap/flap/swooooosh!
We'uns will miss ya, Bird Jewel of the Air, so swoosh on back in a day or so for a new post(Both on the Front Porch and the Back Porch)
(but...jes' fer fun, will ya share wif Pig what conservative ideas youse able to live wif? I mean, ya said to Hail Pig:
"You state I have hate and intolerance for everything nonleft. Completely inaccurate.Where the heck did you get that? "
Give some examples, if ya would , of why that is inaccurate, honey--this would hep ole Aunty B see the bridgebuildin' fer shur...Aunty here is in favor of some libertarian ideas--like lettin' folks smoke in yer own place of bidness iffin' ya wants to have that policy. An' nope, I'se not a smoker, never was, but I'se in favor of freedom from TOO bif a gubmint that thinks its purpose is to slap yer around iffin ya ain't in that harness in yer car, and such)
how i can be interpreted as hateful and intolerant is beyond me, when my typical MO is to engage in open and courteous debate.
i've already said i agreed that we will probably need to bomb iran - how specific an example do you want?
many conservatives feel we should support israel (so do i). of course, many conservatives also feel we are manipulated by "the jews." i disagree with that.
now to be sure, i rarely agree with hardline, far-right conservatives (and generally completely disagree with Christian fundamentalists), but you have automatically assumed that disagreement = intolerance and hate.
can any "conservatives" or quasi conservatives (as in a previous comment on some other blog, hellpig as stated he is NOT a conservative) provide examples of where they agree with liberals? can they demonstrate in what ways they are not hateful and intolerant of liberals?
now, i am really out of here (famous last words).
swoosh!
Well stated Bird, real fine, and I doesn't think youse "hateful" a'tall.
An' mostly youse mild mannered about the person yer disagreein' wif...
But, golly jeepers, I shur am hopin ya doesn't think ole Aunty B is "intolerant" or "hateful" either?!?!?
Do check back soon...I'll be on to a new topic. (but no less contentions. perhaps)
........Ardlair, I don't see nuthin' on that hook, 'cepting yer bait.
Aunty B sorry for the rough language
Bird just by you calling me a idiot shows your intolerance and hate,I never personally attacked you.
I am not a Conservative I did not vote for Bush,I am a capitalist,I disagree with everything the Libs stand for.So I am neither right or left but upper centrist.
The same old crap still blaming George Bush for lying and decieving the American public
Yet when the Dems deliberately put spies in the CIA to leak info to the treasonuos Liberal press it's OK
Frigg'in traitors
You talk as though we will be engaged in a land war with Iran,this will not happen we will bomb the crap out of them with air strikes only,we won't be going in for the oil,not this time..
TOO hot here gotta go it's 83 degrees and a beer has my name on it somewhere
I support the President's war on terror because I don't want the same liberal nut jobs to make this another I hate the troops like they did in NAM,it took our nation 20 years to heal from the liberal whack jobs attacking NAM
/bark bark bark
you can't win with ardlair aunty!
ardlair i am shipping your medal to scotland. for your good work, which you then sarc'ed.
howl!
I never claimed not to be hateful and intolerant,I am both of these.which just leaves your hipocrisy
Bird... "nutjob test" simple answer good or evil
The question is the ACLU good or evil?
Well Bird?
Whatcha testin Belle?
May 15, 2006
A culture of legalised lunacy
Daily Mail, 15 May 2006
Once again, the Prime Minister is trying to surf a wave of popular outrage by announcing he will take action which on closer examination proves to be mere froth -- not least because his own policy lies at the very heart of the problem.
Thus Tony Blair has spoken out against ‘an abuse of common sense’ in the way human rights law has been used to allow nine Afghan hijackers to remain in Britain, or free a rapist from prison only for him to commit murder.
But it is his own human rights law which has quite simply altered the entire legal and moral culture of this country and taken an axe to common sense.
The judge in last week’s Afghan ruling has been roundly pilloried. But common sense in this case was trounced in 2004, when an immigration tribunal ruled on human rights grounds that it was too dangerous to send the hijackers back to Afghanistan – even though the Taleban, from whom they had fled, had been replaced by a western-backed government.
The root of the problem here is not the wretched judge but the Government itself, which dragged its feet over this case for years. This was because it was paralysed by the fact that human rights law – described only last week by the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, as the Government’s ‘greatest achievement’ – has created in this country a culture of legalised lunacy.
Detectives across the country are refusing to issue ‘wanted’ posters for missing foreign criminals because they say they do not want to breach their right to privacy and risk lawsuits by releasing their names and photographs.
The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency routinely shreds the driving records of speeding and drunken drivers because bureaucrats are afraid of human rights laws. That means that thousands of drivers with a bad history escape with lighter punishments because courts cannot learn the full truth about their past.
It is no use saying that such judgments misread human rights law since, because such law consists of a balancing act between competing ‘rights’ requiring the courts to arbitrate between them, no-one can be sure how any such disruptive cases will end up.
The fact is that ruling after human rights ruling has turned right and wrong on their heads and radically undermined the covenant of responsibility between the individual and the state. To take an egregious example, human rights law has destroyed this country’s ability to control its own borders.
The courts have used the ‘human right’ to family life to reward illegal immigration. Their absurdly generalised interpretation of the prohibition against torture -- which wrenched this principle out of all recognition -- has made it all but impossible to deport those foreigners who threaten this country’s security. The Law Lords’ perverse reading of ‘discrimination’ last year has meant that such suspects can’t even be locked up pending removal from this country.
What kind of ‘human rights’ are these, which actually force a country to destroy its own security along with its principles of citizenship, fairness and obligation?
At the weekend, Mr Blair said he was considering fresh legislation to prevent future court rulings from ‘overruling the Government’. Here lie the first clues to the fact that these are likely to be empty words.
First, he’s only considering any change. Second, human rights law doesn’t give the courts the power to overrule the Government. All they can do is declare legislation incompatible with human rights law, thus putting pressure on ministers. So Mr Blair has given us a straw man which he promises he will knock down.
Then look at the way in which the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, has been twisting and turning. There might need to be legislation, he said, to ensure that human rights law would have no effect on public safety issues.
But the whole point of human rights law is that it is supposed to be an overarching set of principles. So it can’t be chopped and changed. And in any case, what kind of overarching principles are these which, in the Lord Chancellor’s opinion, actually imperil public safety?
Lord Falconer appears to be saying that it’s not human rights law that’s at fault but certain officials who are misunderstanding it. This is completely and lamentably to miss the point.
It’s not merely that this law has paralysed public bodies like the police and the intelligence service, which say they can barely move for fear of falling foul of it. More fundamentally still, human rights law has driven justice, morality and social order off the rails altogether.
It has acted as a grievance charter fuelling the ‘victim culture’ in which all minorities are seen as incapable of being held responsible for their actions. As such, it has become a principal weapon against the culture and identity of the nation – and, by transferring power to the judges, has delivered a powerful blow against our democracy.
Abolishing the Human Rights Act would certainly help to put a brake on that process. But the problem would remain that Britain is signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, which would still have supremacy over our laws.
Look, for example, at the Chahal judgment by the European Court of Human Rights, the key ruling preventing Britain from deporting foreign undesirables. This held that, if a person faced torture or inhuman treatment abroad, the risk to that individual from deporting him could not even be balanced against the risk he might pose to the country which allowed him to stay.
In other words, this ruling was a specific attack on the right of a country to decide what was in its citizens’ own best interests. Well, it’s quite clear that it is in now in this country’s best interests either to derogate from bits of this Convention – as every other signatory but Britain has in fact done – or leave it altogether.
Yesterday, Lord Falconer gave the game away when he acknowledged that -- although the Human Rights Convention has separate origins from the European Union – no country can be a member of the EU unless it is also a Convention signatory.
To some of us, of course, that is precisely why we should leave the EU, in order to restore our powers of self-government and democracy. But the fact that we are the human rights prisoner of the EU is why this Government will never address the deformities of human rights law.
The usual suspects scream that it would be unthinkable to abolish ‘human rights’. How absurd. Real human rights are very different. Indeed, before ‘human rights’ law took hold we were rather more free, not less. Instead, we would be abolishing the arbitrary and undemocratic power of judges to impose upon us a particular agenda that is far from universal.
In the remarkable words last year of the senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, human rights law existed to protect vulnerable minorities - who were sometimes disliked, resented or despised -- against the howls of ‘majority opinion’.
It would seem to follow that -- for the judiciary -- Afghan hijackers, murderers and other criminals are ‘vulnerable minorities’, while the majority who are their potential victims have no human rights at all.
Extricating our nation from this mess would undoubtedly be complicated and difficult. But unless we do so, we are unlikely much longer to have a nation worthy of the name.
Sweet Shoat, I'se testin' my computer skills--and they's pitiful. Somehow, the delete is missin' and I cain't take out a post I made wif misspellin's and such. Doan have a clue as to why the delete is suddnely AWOL. I'se stoopid 'bout computers.
Awesome cut and pate from the Daily and Mail, sugar. Fits right in wif mah next offerin...comin' up shortly.
I'se thinkin' on a new blog--one as a place fer serious thinkers and seekers but less for debate, more fer reference--a palce to stash a long thoughts on China, Human Rights (so happens it is one of mah "areas") AIDS, etc. But, whoo-whee! Whar does one find the time???
AH? Well, now the delete is back--whas' going on?? My my...
Ardlair, youse most welcome to keep throwin' in a line or two...jes' keep the language fit fer an ole biddy, please. We's over 60 now, and it can keep on, but a new one is in the makin'---stand by.
it's not your CPU aunty it's blogger they freeze often,just wait a while and retry
Try and avoid peak times 5 to 8 pm for posting a new topic
your sweet shoat
69 posts - holy (war) cow!!!
Croak,be true to your name sake.
Try reading UK news before you speak about which you know nothing.
The UK and the EU are failed liberal idiotologies.
Take your dhimmitude elsewhere pro-terrorist
You may want to act like 3000 countrymen never died at the hands of Islamic Terrorists,which shows where your patriotism lies.But we will never forget.
Croak you are just another hate/intolerant lib why the diggs on AB and crossdressing?shouldn't you be tolerant to this group you are after all a self described LIB
YEP HIPOCRISY AT IT'S FINEST
Post a Comment