Political Roundtable - Part VI

[popper]

I'm beginning to think that some of the progressives on this site are related to BO and/or Hillary. It appears you're so invested in them that you can't admit the obvious. Even D congressmen admitted this weekend that Susan Rice mislead the country using cooked up talking points that bore no resemblance to the truth. On a subject with such importance, right before the election, do you really think Obama just sat by and let someone else invent the storyline that Rice would repeat on 5 different Sunday news shows. If so, you're delusional. Of course Obama asked Rice to go out and lie her as* off in order for him to deflect blame and preserve his chance at reelection.

You sound a lot like the Democrats when Bush was in office. Who sounded a lot like the Republicans when Clinton was in office.

Based on the reading I've done on this subject, I think Susan Rice "lied" about the attack in Benghazi in much the same way Colin Powell and the Bush administration "lied" about WMDs in Iraq. Which is to say, they repeated things that were given to them by CIA/intel, which turned out to be either incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete.

I understand your point but the CIA/intel never mentioned the film and protest as a cause for the Benghazi attack. Their initial assessment was terror attack by al quida (sp) affiliated group. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) the film excuse was made up and introduced by non-career political appointees.

[Nivek]

popper -- The CIA talking points describe the attack as "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex." That's language from the first draft. That language carried over the to the final version, which also included a line about extremists participating in the violent demonstrations. The stuff about the film doesn't appear in the CIA-drafted talking points.

The first draft also included the reference to Al Qaeda. I haven't read anything yet explaining why it was cut in revisions. Several reasons come to mind -- some politically motivated, some not.

[popper]

popper -- The CIA talking points describe the attack as "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex." That's language from the first draft. That language carried over the to the final version, which also included a line about extremists participating in the violent demonstrations. The stuff about the film doesn't appear in the CIA-drafted talking points.

The first draft also included the reference to Al Qaeda. I haven't read anything yet explaining why it was cut in revisions. Several reasons come to mind -- some politically motivated, some not.

Reread talking points and you are right Nivek. Too much reading between the lines on my part. Why do you think that everyone in the administration brought the film into the narrative given that it was never mentioned in the CIA talking points (rhetorical, I know you've already answered that)?

Also, I would be interested to ascertain the identity of the person within the CIA that concluded that a spontaneously inspired protest at the US Embassy in Cairo evolved into a terrorist attack in Benghazi on Sept 11 (what a spontaneous coincidence). I do appreciate that you have set the record straight.

[popper]

Edit - boring

[dobrojim]

I'm beginning to think that some of the progressives on this site are related to BO and/or Hillary. It appears you're so invested in them that you can't admit the obvious. Even D congressmen admitted this weekend that Susan Rice mislead the country using cooked up talking points that bore no resemblance to the truth. On a subject with such importance, right before the election, do you really think Obama just sat by and let someone else invent the storyline that Rice would repeat on 5 different Sunday news shows. If so, you're delusional. Of course Obama asked Rice to go out and lie her as* off in order for him to deflect blame and preserve his chance at reelection.

You sound a lot like the Democrats when Bush was in office. Who sounded a lot like the Republicans when Clinton was in office.

Based on the reading I've done on this subject, I think Susan Rice "lied" about the attack in Benghazi in much the same way Colin Powell and the Bush administration "lied" about WMDs in Iraq. Which is to say, they repeated things that were given to them by CIA/intel, which turned out to be either incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete.

I tend to agree but would add that the things Rice said were in all likelihood what
she was given (told) to say by the people she trusted to have the information. And
the information was relatively new. In comparing the 2, one should keep in mind that
in the case of Powell (to a lessor extent) and the rest of the Bush admin (to a HUGE extent)
totally misrepresented the certainty to which they 'knew' these things. They knew because
they had plenty of time to investigate:
1. the aluminum tubes were NOT for centrifuges
2. Atta had almost certainly NOT met with Iraqi officials in Prague or anywhere else
3. The yellow cake story was a complete fabrication
...none of that stuff mattered because...

what they didn't disclose was that they were determined well ahead of time (9/11)
to attack Iraq and do regime change. Given how much time they had to plan it, it's
remarkable how bad a job they did with virtually every aspect that followed
the entirely predictable rapid military victory. They arrogantly dismissed any
suggestion, even from those in their own party (Scowcroft), that maybe they
needed to think this through a little better. Lots and lots of people accurately
predicted problems. Damn the "liberal" media for failing to cover with appropriate
weight the truth about what was happening.

The amount of human suffering that resulted from these 2 sets of misrepresentations
is of a scale so vast that to even begin to compare them is ....I fail to come up with
a suitable description. Sandra Day O'Connor, damn you and the other 4 votes that
put someone so temperamentally unsuited into the office of the Pres not to mention
someone so deceitful and utterly lacking in any semblance of human empathy into
the office of VP.

[dobrojim]

Sev,

what percentage of normal law abiding citizens would actually have
their right to bear arms infringed by things lack a background check?

Why do gun advocates get to argue that the 2nd amendment is a
virtually unrestricted right when we know that there are restrictions
on pretty much all the other important individual rights in the Bill of Rights?
Why shouldn't there be a limit of things such as clip size?

The 2nd amendment language includes 'well regulated militia' in it
precisely because the founders feared, for good reason, their country
having a permanent standing army (where are the Tea Partiers on that one?)
and they envisioned defense being handled by what today would be
analogous to the national guard.

As someone who argues strongly against prohibition against most drugs
in no small part due to the practical effects of it, I fully understand
and appreciate that there are MASSIVE practical aspects to gun regulation
with or without the 2nd amendment. That doesn't change the fact
that changes MUST happen to respond to the fact that at this point
in time, the 2nd amendment is an anachronism. It causes WAY more
problems than it solves. Our gun culture is a serious pathology.

Unless and until gun rights advocates offer reasonable limitations
of their own, they are part of the problem. Claiming that it's
all too awful and that nothing can possibly work to improve it
is not a reasonable position to take.

[popper]

I'm beginning to think that some of the progressives on this site are related to BO and/or Hillary. It appears you're so invested in them that you can't admit the obvious. Even D congressmen admitted this weekend that Susan Rice mislead the country using cooked up talking points that bore no resemblance to the truth. On a subject with such importance, right before the election, do you really think Obama just sat by and let someone else invent the storyline that Rice would repeat on 5 different Sunday news shows. If so, you're delusional. Of course Obama asked Rice to go out and lie her as* off in order for him to deflect blame and preserve his chance at reelection.

You sound a lot like the Democrats when Bush was in office. Who sounded a lot like the Republicans when Clinton was in office.

Based on the reading I've done on this subject, I think Susan Rice "lied" about the attack in Benghazi in much the same way Colin Powell and the Bush administration "lied" about WMDs in Iraq. Which is to say, they repeated things that were given to them by CIA/intel, which turned out to be either incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete.

I tend to agree but would add that the things Rice said were in all likelihood what
she was given (told) to say by the people she trusted to have the information. And
the information was relatively new. In comparing the 2, one should keep in mind that
in the case of Powell (to a lessor extent) and the rest of the Bush admin (to a HUGE extent)
totally misrepresented the certainty to which they 'knew' these things. They knew because
they had plenty of time to investigate:
1. the aluminum tubes were NOT for centrifuges
2. Atta had almost certainly NOT met with Iraqi officials in Prague or anywhere else
3. The yellow cake story was a complete fabrication
...none of that stuff mattered because...

what they didn't disclose was that they were determined well ahead of time (9/11)
to attack Iraq and do regime change. Given how much time they had to plan it, it's
remarkable how bad a job they did with virtually every aspect that followed
the entirely predictable rapid military victory. They arrogantly dismissed any
suggestion, even from those in their own party (Scowcroft), that maybe they
needed to think this through a little better. Lots and lots of people accurately
predicted problems. Damn the "liberal" media for failing to cover with appropriate
weight the truth about what was happening.

The amount of human suffering that resulted from these 2 sets of misrepresentations
is of a scale so vast that to even begin to compare them is ....I fail to come up with
a suitable description. Sandra Day O'Connor, damn you and the other 4 votes that
put someone so temperamentally unsuited into the office of the Pres not to mention
someone so deceitful and utterly lacking in any semblance of human empathy into
the office of VP.

I tend to agree with some of your points JIm, others not so much. I've not studied in detail whether or not Bush lied but I'm curious to know. Your point about Rice is valid - she may have just been following orders with little knowledge of what actually took place. I also agree that Bush had it in his mind to take out Saddam and that he was too stupid to listen to wiser counsel.

Please direct me to your sources for the following statements so I can get up to speed.

They knew because
they had plenty of time to investigate:
1. the aluminum tubes were NOT for centrifuges
2. Atta had almost certainly NOT met with Iraqi officials in Prague or anywhere else
3. The yellow cake story was a complete fabrication
...none of that stuff mattered because...

[popper]

Sev,

what percentage of normal law abiding citizens would actually have
their right to bear arms infringed by things lack a background check?

Why do gun advocates get to argue that the 2nd amendment is a
virtually unrestricted right when we know that there are restrictions
on pretty much all the other important individual rights in the Bill of Rights?
Why shouldn't there be a limit of things such as clip size?

The 2nd amendment language includes 'well regulated militia' in it
precisely because the founders feared, for good reason, their country
having a permanent standing army (where are the Tea Partiers on that one?)
and they envisioned defense being handled by what today would be
analogous to the national guard.

As someone who argues strongly against prohibition against most drugs
in no small part due to the practical effects of it, I fully understand
and appreciate that there are MASSIVE practical aspects to gun regulation
with or without the 2nd amendment. That doesn't change the fact
that changes MUST happen to respond to the fact that at this point
in time, the 2nd amendment is an anachronism. It causes WAY more
problems than it solves. Our gun culture is a serious pathology.

Unless and until gun rights advocates offer reasonable limitations
of their own, they are part of the problem. Claiming that it's
all too awful and that nothing can possibly work to improve it
is not a reasonable position to take.

I can only speak for myself (a conservative gun owner but not an NRA member). Background checks are wise policy (I just went through one for my latest purchase), the gov't right to establish reasonable limits is valid (no machine guns, bazookas, RPG's etc.) and I'm good with a maximum ten shot magazine. I'm not completely aware of what sabotaged the gun regulation but didn't it have something to do with a requirement for private gun sellers to maintain records for some period of time? And didn't it criminalize a gun owner for a gun that was stolen from him or her. Again, I'm not up to speed on what actually happened but I'm curious.

[dobrojim]

read Hubris by Isikoff and Corn

or (dare I say it) watch the program by the same name on MSNBC

They knew there was more than ample reason to doubt that
the things they were saying were true.

[dobrojim]

I can only speak for myself (a conservative gun owner but not an NRA member). Background checks are wise policy (I just went through one for my latest purchase), the gov't right to establish reasonable limits is valid (no machine guns, bazookas, RPG's etc.) and I'm good with a maximum ten shot magazine. I'm not completely aware of what sabotaged the gun regulation but didn't it have something to do with a requirement for private gun sellers to maintain records for some period of time? And didn't it criminalize a gun owner for a gun that was stolen from him or her. Again, I'm not up to speed on what actually happened but I'm curious.

the NRA flat out lied about what was in the bill. That's what actually happened.

What's stunning of late is the number of cases we're hearing about concerning children
accidentally getting killed by guns. Parents giving a gun to a 5 yo who then proceeds
to kill his little sister. Stuff like that.

http://tinyurl.com/c38qeu2

[Zonkerbl]

The gun argument is easy to break down:

Should the second amendment be modified/repealed? Without a doubt.

Will it? For next 10-15 years, no way. A budget can't even be passed, and the gun issue should not even be in the top 10 of senate priorities right now. Add in weapon lobbyists who hold major sway over executive branch/senate.....just won't happen. While the NRA has republicans, companies similar to Raytheon have both parties in their pockets due to national defense.

Excellent way to act like they are doing real work however. Both sides realize no significant gun legislation is passing in the next decade.

Same argument for agriculture subsidies. Are they anachronistic and an enormous waste of taxpayer money? Yes. Is it politically feasible to get rid of them? No.

I really do believe that guns are manufactured to kill people and that the Commandment against murder applies to them. Guns may be a necessary evil, but being necessary doesn't make them any less evil. That's what's wrong with the 2nd amendment -- the endorsement by the Constitution has people thinking "hey, guns are our friends!" It's like marijuana -- I ask kids, "Why is marijuana bad?" And the answer? "Because it's illegal."

I'm against the current gun control legislation because it doesn't do anything except make gun owners mad.

$1,000 excise tax on guns. I don't think that infringes on the 2nd amendment at all. If you really care about guns, put your money where your mouth is. Acknowledge the murder and mayhem that results from our gun ownership fetish and own up to it.

[Zonkerbl]

I can only speak for myself (a conservative gun owner but not an NRA member). Background checks are wise policy (I just went through one for my latest purchase), the gov't right to establish reasonable limits is valid (no machine guns, bazookas, RPG's etc.) and I'm good with a maximum ten shot magazine. I'm not completely aware of what sabotaged the gun regulation but didn't it have something to do with a requirement for private gun sellers to maintain records for some period of time? And didn't it criminalize a gun owner for a gun that was stolen from him or her. Again, I'm not up to speed on what actually happened but I'm curious.

the NRA flat out lied about what was in the bill. That's what actually happened.

What stunning of late is the number of cases we're hearing about concerning children
accidentally getting killed by guns. Parents giving a gun to a 5 yo who then proceeds
to kill his little sister. Stuff like that.

http://tinyurl.com/c38qeu2

Anecdotal. The data shows accidents are less than a thousand of the 30,000 deaths per year, and we don't know how many of those are children. But you still have about 800 instances so it's certainly possible to dig up enough anecdotes to make it seem like a significant part of the problem. And of course it's kids and any kid being accidentally killed by a gun is too many. My problem with that tactic is that technically you can solve that problem by keeping your guns carefully locked away and teaching your kids about safe gun use as early as possible. The numbers show the real problem with too many guns is suicides. I think the most intellectually honest way to portray the gun "problem" is to dig up anecdotes of teens killing themselves.

I would have a series of advertisements with two interviewees each. First you start with someone who tried to commit suicide as a teen (with pills, say) and failed and went on to have a happy life. Then you switch to someone whose child committed suicide with a gun. Make a point that the kid was well educated on gun safety. Then end the commercial with "suicide attempts with guns are x% more likely to succeed than non-gun related attempts. Help us stop the bloodshed. Vote to tax guns."

[dobrojim]

it's not an anecdote that this 5 yo in KY killed his sister with the gun
his parents bought for him. Gawd knows what they could have been
thinking with that present.

the motherjones story has links to each of the 71 deaths of 12 & under
kids in the link. Whether it represents an increase over what is horrendously
considered 'normal' is really beside the point.

[popper]

I think most gun owners are a bit paranoid about the proverbial elephant's nose under the tent. If magazines are limited to ten rounds today then why couldn't they be limited to single shot in the future. I could go on with a number of other examples but there is a trust issue here that must be overcome.

Gun owners understand for example that there are many that would like to work toward an outright ban on gun ownership. In their minds, this is a non-negotiable issue. Whether you choose to believe it or not, there are millions of gun owning American citizens that truly believe that our right to bear arms protects this country against tyranny. I think a careful study of history would lend some credence to that position. And yes, there is a price to pay for that right, young children accidentally killed, easier suicides, crime sprees with higher death tolls than would otherwise occur. But for millions of Amercans, they believe the awful trade-off is worth the price.

My only comment on the Second Amendment and its "well regulated militia" verbiage is that any Governor (I think there are 30 R's currently) can issue an executive order enlisting all state citizens into its state militia. They can further provide a list of regulations governing that executive order so that the "well regulated" requirement is met.

I would like to see further gun regulation but I doubt it will happen unless the opposing parties truly understand and appreciate one another's position.

[dobrojim]

how is your underlined part to be distinguished from treason and sedition?

besides, it's silly if they think their firearms can really protect them if
the govt really did want to kill them

the other good one I've heard is how no other country could dare invade
us because of how heavily armed we are. As if we were in any real danger
of being invaded.

[popper]

how is your underlined part to be distinguished from treason and sedition?

besides, it's silly if they think their firearms can really protect them if
the govt really did want to kill them

the other good one I've heard is how no other country could dare invade
us because of how heavily armed we are. As if we were in any real danger
of being invaded.

The distinction would be if our own govt. breaches the Constitution (what is IMO and millions of others that inviolable contract that protects our freedom, liberty and physical persons). And as you know, we already have millions of American citizens that believe in a "living constitution". It's easy to fast forward and see how a win by that contingent would negatively effect our rights. The majority would jam through whatever the passion of the day might be.

[dobrojim]

how is your underlined part to be distinguished from treason and sedition?

besides, it's silly if they think their firearms can really protect them if
the govt really did want to kill them

the other good one I've heard is how no other country could dare invade
us because of how heavily armed we are. As if we were in any real danger
of being invaded.

The distinction would be if our own govt. breaches the Constitution (what is IMO and millions of others that inviolable contract that protects our freedom, liberty and physical persons). And as you know, we already have millions of American citizens that believe in a "living constitution". It's easy to fast forward and see how a win by that contingent would negatively effect our rights. The majority would jam through whatever the passion of the day might be.

so as long as your interpretation is upheld, all is kool. As soon as it's not,
then you, or likeminded others, have license to go out and use their firearms
against whoever they feel are acting tyrannically? I hope that's not what you're saying.

[popper]

how is your underlined part to be distinguished from treason and sedition?

besides, it's silly if they think their firearms can really protect them if
the govt really did want to kill them

the other good one I've heard is how no other country could dare invade
us because of how heavily armed we are. As if we were in any real danger
of being invaded.

The distinction would be if our own govt. breaches the Constitution (what is IMO and millions of others that inviolable contract that protects our freedom, liberty and physical persons). And as you know, we already have millions of American citizens that believe in a "living constitution". It's easy to fast forward and see how a win by that contingent would negatively effect our rights. The majority would jam through whatever the passion of the day might be.

so as long as your interpretation is upheld, all is kool. As soon as it's not,
then you, or likeminded others, have license to go out and use their firearms
against whoever they feel are acting tyrannically? I hope that's not what you're saying.

Correct. If, at some point in the future, the people decide to disregard or become ambivalent to our constitutional protections, then there's no longer any restraint (or less restraint depending upon what, if anything, replaces it). At that point, those that want to do us harm in order to achieve their objectives will do what they can. Historically, those objectives are aimed at acquiring absolute power. They could be gun owners as you mention, but more likely guns would have already been confiscated (since that constitutional right no longer exists in this scenario). More likely they would be the ignorant mass led by a charismatic orator promising utopia if we could just get rid of ........... choose your villain (Christians, Jews, Blacks, Corporate Executives, old white guys, etc.). History is replete with examples.

[pancakes3]

Whether you choose to believe it or not, there are millions of gun owning American citizens that truly believe that our right to bear arms protects this country against tyranny. I think a careful study of history would lend some credence to that position. And yes, there is a price to pay for that right, young children accidentally killed, easier suicides, crime sprees with higher death tolls than would otherwise occur. But for millions of Americans, they believe the awful trade-off is worth the price.

a) One logical fallacy that I'm starting to see more and more of is the "majority rules" argument or even worse "plurality rules". Even if there is a sizable chunk that decides that virgin sacrifices will keep the economy afloat does not make it true. This is even worse as it pertains to matters of science and fact (evolution?!).

b) Another logical fallacy is to trace history. Historical evidence of violent revolutions by the populace does not necessitate future violent revolution. That argument is downright Marxist in modern interpretations. A democracy by definition goes through a bloodless revolution every election cycle. There is literally nothing to rebel against other than your very own vote. To say that Spartacus led his gladiator slaves to a bloody coup through the good graces of being armed means that Americans need to be armed is as false an analogy as there is.

c) It is a uncivilized and backwards reaction to take up arms every time things don't go your way. We have many avenues of checks and balances in the modern age than before to keep things on the up and up. The internet has made political policing exponentially easier. The ties of economies (China, Europe, and the US forming a delicate tripod of interdependence) brings relative peace to the world. We have so many different ways to be heard and to enact change, the idea that the people need to be able to threaten the legislature with murder in order to feel safe is a remnant from the cavemen times.

[popper]

Whether you choose to believe it or not, there are millions of gun owning American citizens that truly believe that our right to bear arms protects this country against tyranny. I think a careful study of history would lend some credence to that position. And yes, there is a price to pay for that right, young children accidentally killed, easier suicides, crime sprees with higher death tolls than would otherwise occur. But for millions of Americans, they believe the awful trade-off is worth the price.

a) One logical fallacy that I'm starting to see more and more of is the "majority rules" argument or even worse "plurality rules". Even if there is a sizable chunk that decides that virgin sacrifices will keep the economy afloat does not make it true. This is even worse as it pertains to matters of science and fact (evolution?!).

b) Another logical fallacy is to trace history. Historical evidence of violent revolutions by the populace does not necessitate future violent revolution. That argument is downright Marxist in modern interpretations. A democracy by definition goes through a bloodless revolution every election cycle. There is literally nothing to rebel against other than your very own vote. To say that Spartacus led his gladiator slaves to a bloody coup through the good graces of being armed means that Americans need to be armed is as false an analogy as there is.

c) It is a uncivilized and backwards reaction to take up arms every time things don't go your way. We have many avenues of checks and balances in the modern age than before to keep things on the up and up. The internet has made political policing exponentially easier. The ties of economies (China, Europe, and the US forming a delicate tripod of interdependence) brings relative peace to the world. We have so many different ways to be heard and to enact change, the idea that the people need to be able to threaten the legislature with murder in order to feel safe is a remnant from the cavemen times.

Pancakes - i think you must have misread my post.

Point A – I won’t argue against your statement that “majority or plurality rules is a fallacy”. Obviously there have been governments in the past where majority rule was not a fallacy but no need to split hairs.

Point b - you say that “Historical evidence of violent revolutions by the populace does not necessitate future violent revolution.” Agree, but isn't that in large measure because the opponents of the revolution have been murdered, hacked to pieces and disarmed? The Russian, Cuban, Iranian, Vietnamese and Chinese revolutions left opponents dead, imprisoned and disarmed. It’s no surprise that a counter revolution has not occurred.

Point C – I agree it’s “uncivilized and backwards to take up arms every time things don’t go your way”. Not sure who on this site would have proposed such a thing. I also agree that “the idea that the people need to be able to threaten the legislature with murder in order to feel safe is a remnant from the cavemen times”. Again, don’t know anyone who would propose such action.