Pangloss

I agree with this position, and I think it has not only merit, but objective value.

Just to throw my two cents out there: I also have (as most of you will recall) a tendency toward believing that the mainstream media suffers from consistent leftward bias. It seems like every day I'm pummeled by news stories about Jane Doe, a single mom with five kids who can't seem to make ends meet, and yet it's never explained to me why Jane charged $3,000 worth of Christmas presents on her credit cards in November, or what SHE intends to do to resolve her situation (it's always about what *I* need to do to resolve her situation). But as angry and frustrating as that can be, I have to temper that with the understanding that it can be a trap, along the lines of what Bascule was posting earlier. Just because someone (in this case the MSM) uses a straw man argument doesn't meant that the problem they're pummeling me over the head with doesn't exist and that we shouldn't do anything about it. With regard to the issue of domestic spying, I don't feel that I know enough yet to declare that the administration has broken the law, and frankly I don't understand how anyone else (Algore, the Father of the Internet, included) can declare that he has. The issues raised by the administration about authority are important ones, and not easily dismissed. And this is consistent with my long-held appreciation for the fact that this administration has been willing to stand up and challenge issues that previously were ignored. The Clinton administration would have stamped its feet and screamed about a "unitary executive" and "presidential powers", but in the end it would have simply done as it was told (and probably did, if I remembered any examples). That having been said, however, there is also an important issue of compromise here that needs to be recognized and addressed. It ALSO cannot be easily dismissed as a partisan issue, regardless of whether its supporters are merely "all the Democrats in Congress". I don't trust any politician, and neither should you. The issue of declarations of war has never been settled in this country, and yet we proceed as if we are at war, and that assumption is used to justify many actions that even their proponents implicitly agree would be questionable in peacetime. Shouldn't we therefore establish what constitutes war and what does not, lest we all end up living in a police state at some future point in time? Is this not an important issue REGARDLESS of whether George W. Bush has crossed this line? After all, ultimately, it is our decision.

My trigger finger is approaching the "close thread" button. This is a very interesting discussion, and I'd hate to cut it off. I think both sides have made some interesting. Let's stay focused on the issues and not whether one person or another has made their case, is being a shill, or looks funny in that hat.

I don't see where the case has been here that communism was actually "effective" at any given time, as opposed to only giving the appearance of being effective.

Interesting.

Hello, my name is Pangloss, and I have a tube socks problem.

You have it backwards. It became a 3rd world country under communism' date=' and has turned to a market economy to climb out of it, and (surprise surprise) it's working. There's no fewer people "punching calculators" under your system. They're just doing it by force instead of choice. "I will work harder!" said Horse.

Heh, yeah that's a good point. Also the mainstream media: Bring in a reporter here to debate the issue of tax cuts, and they'd only be able to tell us about Milly Smith, a working single mother in Sue Falls, South Dakota, and her three children and aging mother. (grin)

You're mistaken. From an earlier post from me in this thread: So clearly I'm not saying it wasn't justified, I'm asking whether "we're at war" is a valid justification in this case. I don't believe that question has been answered in this thread, and your quote above doesn't address it at all. Justifications were posted in this thread on the basis of "we're at war", so my point is valid. (But I thought entwined's response about constitutional declarations of war was an interesting counterpoint.)

Hmm, that's an interesting point. I admit I have not considered it.

Starting to look more and more like some top Al Qaeda officials were killed in the bombing. ABC News is reporting that the group included their top bomb-maker. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1517986 I think those who said we should wait and see what developes were smart.

I agree, and I'm actually fairly excited by the prospect of a little superpower competition.

I don't need an IP address to identify him, and apparently many of you don't either, since several of you figured it out before I did. I have met few people in my 25 years of online debate that are as callously disrespectful of other people's opinions than he is, and as much as I respect his knowledge and insight, he is, in the end, 180 degrees polarized with my goals for this board. This will not be a board where people throw ideologies in each others' faces in the name of "debate", and denigrate and browbeat each other into submission. *WILL NOT!* I hope you all are okay with that, but if you're not, you're welcome to send me or another mod or admin a private message. 'Nuff said.

It's an interesting observation. Of course, the Chinese people only have access to the markets their government allows them to have access too. Just yesterday there was a story making the rounds about Chinese farmers not being allowed to ask for more money for the sale of their land. And just try and do a Google search on "falun gong" from any computer in China.

Right. Iraq is not a declared war, so "the authorized use of force by a soldier in a time of war cannot, by definition, be murder" would not apply here.

Interesting post, AL. I had much the same initial reaction as you and AL did as I was reading it, and in fact for much of my reading of it I wasn't actually sure if he was going to come down on the side of "creation" or "evolution" (using those possibly errant terms for the sake of simplicity), and I wasn't sure if in fact I was actually just reading a moderate conservative's effort to trod a fine line and do some serious hair-splitting. So I would have to nod in acknowledgement at any criticism along those lines, even though my final impression was a different one.

Science fiction author Orson Scott Card, who has recently begun to make a second reputation for himself as a conservative blogger and editorial writer, had an interesting perspective piece on this the other day. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html His (anti-ID) position was basically that ID proponents should not be criticized on the same basis as the traditional debunking of creationism. There are "Darwinists" who base their position on faith and close the door of science in so doing. Those people are just as wrong as the IDers. He goes on to say that the only valid basis for arguing against IDers is that while there are problems with the evolutionary model, those problems amount to questions, and ID amounts to an answer, and it's an answer that has not been proven. His ultimate point apparently being that schools should focus on teaching the scientific method and critical thinking, and not wrote transmission of evolution as if it were some kind of faith. Anyway, it's a good read so I thought I'd pass it along.

You did not include that passage, and there is a clear and obvious difference between linking and quoting. Your post distorted the issue. I corrected your error. If was just an honest mistake, and not a deliberate attempt to distort the issue, then I'm certainly glad to hear it.

One of the more notable plaintiffs in this case is James Bamford, author of two definitive and interesting books on the subject of the National Security Agency. Bamford is also a staunch critic of the Bush administration.

It should be noted that Pakistan confirmed today that three of the men killed in the attacks were "foreign fighters". This would seem to confirm the general accuracy of the administration's intelligence reports on the subject.

Since we're talking about a legal concept here, what legally-delineated war would you be referring to? Congress has not declared war on Iraq (or, for that matter, "Terrorovia"). (There's plenty of legal basis for this use of force, IMO. I'm just not agreeing with this particular choice.)

Since you're asking for a moral judgement, you might have taken a moment to include this key passage: Would your friends call the insurgent's act murder as well? And if not (say, because we invaded), then what does the act of using a sniper rifle have to do with anything?

I think that's an excellent point, and very well put. And I don't think you're a "silly liberal" at all.