TheRPGSite

If so, please report to the RPGPundit's political Panel thread. Your site needs you!

RPGPundit

Clarify a little here.

 Do you mean "LIKE" or voted for  because the alternative was not a good idea?

 I "LIKE" his daughters,...and I REALLY LIKE Condoleeza Rice - but I don't think thats what you're really asking here.  Laura Ingraham seems like one that i could have a drink with or just shoot the breeze.


- Ed C.

I didn't vote for Bush. His administration gives me the creeps.

I voted for him the first time thinking that there's no way some Republican couldn't handle 4 to 8 quiet years of American prosperity. He'll keep taxes realtively low, and if he's the conservative he said he was, the deficit can still go down.

I was wrong, sue me.

The second time I voted for Kerry, just because I didn't want some stubborn fool at the wheel of the ship of state during the era of conflict we're still living in.

In the end I'd rather have a quiet peaceful nation with fairly low taxes, a fairly small army, a willingness to culture an educated citizenry, and a government that isn't so concerned with what consenting adults do with their genitals.

Quote from: KoltarDo you mean "LIKE" or voted for  because the alternative was not a good idea?

You might "like" a punch in the face more than a kick in the junk... but I don't think you actually like the punch in the face... do you? ;)

i'd like to see him roasted alive, on a spit.  does that count?

Quote from: RPGPunditIf so, please report to the RPGPundit's political Panel thread. Your site needs you!

I voted for him twice and don't hate him, but I'm certainly pretty disappointed in some of the things he's done.  I'm quite pleased with his Supreme Court nominees, though, which is one of the main reasons why I voted for him.

Not sure I have time to get involved in prolonged political debates with you, though.  Good debates require facts and details rather than two people simply blathering opinions at each other and that can take a lot of time to do, especially if the topic keeps shifting.

I posted to the other thread, but I'll put in a note here:

I... okay... What John said. Except I'm willing to blather without facts, this being the Internet, and all. ;)

Cheers,
-E.

Yes, I do.

I voted for Bush the first time because I think Gore is a moron.  Ok, I don't think he's a moron, but I didn't think he had the right combination. I thought that, as someone else said, Bush would cruise through a first term. I preferred a republican as it was a bit more likely that he would get through the next couple of years without resorting to a lot of government overshit for the looming financial slowdown that nobody seemed to want to talk about but was evident in 2000 when the tech bubble was in the process of popping.

When September 11th happened, I think he did a pretty good job of keeping the nation on track.  I never agreed with the "go on with your normal lives" approach, but I thought he handled Afghanistan properly.  I'm also a believer in the doctrine that he espoused that says the US should not take stability over democracy.

I agreed with his decision on Iraq, but not for the reasons that most people support. I also think it's a moot point now.  The real question is what is the best next step, not whether we should have gone in in the first place. I'm perfectly willing to argue about that if someone pushes; but I'm more interested in how people think the US should move forward.

I think Bush has allowed way too much spending. I think he got suckered by Kennedy with respect to Education. I think he's too loyal to people who have lost the ability to add value to the government.  I think he's crazy if he allows an immigration bill to pass that does not deal with border issues first.  I think he fucked up Iraq after 1 month, and it's taken four and a half years for the US to get back to it should have been. I think he let the overhaul of the forces outweigh the proper strategic decisions.

Do I like Bush? I don't know him as a person.  I was within about 100' of him at a rally in Western Michigan during the last election. I'm mixed on his policy decisions.

Quote from: JamesVI voted for him the first time thinking that there's no way some Republican couldn't handle 4 to 8 quiet years of American prosperity. He'll keep taxes realtively low, and if he's the conservative he said he was, the deficit can still go down.

I was wrong, sue me.

The second time I voted for Kerry, just because I didn't want some stubborn fool at the wheel of the ship of state during the era of conflict we're still living in.

In the end I'd rather have a quiet peaceful nation with fairly low taxes, a fairly small army, a willingness to culture an educated citizenry, and a government that isn't so concerned with what consenting adults do with their genitals.

This is very close to how things went for me, except that I just didn't bother to vote in 2000 because I didn't particularly like Bush or Gore, and figured the country was doing so well at the time, that it wouldn't really matter who got elected.  Boy was I wrong.

Quote from: jgantsThis is very close to how things went for me, except that I just didn't bother to vote in 2000 because I didn't particularly like Bush or Gore, and figured the country was doing so well at the time, that it wouldn't really matter who got elected.  Boy was I wrong.

Well, the problem with these games is that we'll never know what kind of President Al Gore would have made or what he would have done about 9/11.  The same is true about John Kerry.  All we can do is guess.  

And as for the country doing well, there was plenty of evidence that we were dropping into a recession at the end of the Clinton presidency but the mainstream press didn't want to talk about that (just like they didn't talk about the homeless problem, the gap between rich and poor, and a host of other problems while Clinton was president, even though they were there and sometimes even worse than before his Presidency).  Did Bush's tax cuts, for example, play any roll in the mildness of the recession?  Would Gore have been able to manage it as well or better?  Again, that becomes a guessing game because we never get to see the alternative play out.

The person or the administration?

As a person, he represents the worst of showman candidacies and puppet presidencies.  As an administration, it represents the worst of ideogoguery over practical leadership.  On both counts, it's among the lows for US presidencies.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAs a person, he represents the worst of showman candidacies and puppet presidencies.  As an administration, it represents the worst of ideogoguery over practical leadership.  On both counts, it's among the lows for US presidencies.

He's still been better for America that Jimmy Carter who presided over double-digit inflation, high unemployment, an oil shortage, neglected the military (talk to someone who served during the Carter years), failed to successfully negotiate a nuclear reduction treaty, gave up the Panama Canal, lost Iran to Islamic radicals and couldn't deal effectively with the hostage crisis, dealt with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by boycotting the Moscow Olympics and started the funding of Islamic fundamentalist to resist the USSR that Reagan often solely gets blamed for, didn't prevent the Iran-Iraq war, didn't really do anything to bring order to Lebanon (are any of these countries sounding familiar yet?), and won a Nobel Prize for a peace treaty that got Anwar Sadat murdered and still hasn't produced peace.  If you look at the vast majority of trouble spots for the US now (including Korea), you'll often find a Carter policy or an event during the Carter presidency that contributed to it.

Quote from: John MorrowHe's still been better for America that Jimmy Carter who presided over double-digit inflation, high unemployment, an oil shortage, neglected the military (talk to someone who served during the Carter years), failed to successfully negotiate a nuclear reduction treaty, gave up the Panama Canal, lost Iran to Islamic radicals and couldn't deal effectively with the hostage crisis, dealt with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by boycotting the Moscow Olympics and started the funding of Islamic fundamentalist to resist the USSR that Reagan often solely gets blamed for, didn't prevent the Iran-Iraq war, didn't really do anything to bring order to Lebanon (are any of these countries sounding familiar yet?), and won a Nobel Prize for a peace treaty that got Anwar Sadat murdered and still hasn't produced peace.  If you look at the vast majority of trouble spots for the US now (including Korea), you'll often find a Carter policy or an event during the Carter presidency that contributed to it.

You forgot to mention how Carter cut the budget for both energy research and space exploration.

I'd agree about Carter.  Here's how I rate the last 50 or so years worth of presidents:

* G.W. Bush is terrible, absolutely terrible.  One of the worst presidents ever.

* Clinton was no prize.  The country happened to flourish under him, but I can't recall him doing anything that led to that.  What I do remember is him getting nowhere fast with his universal health care plan, waffling back and forth on every single issue and being indecisive in general (the Haiti situation still annoys me), being rather weak on handling the military, and the constant scandals he was involved in - including his terrible lack of dignity and discretion.

* G.H.W. Bush was merely mediocre.  He was fairly strong with regards to foreign policy, but that was kind of moot when the cold war suddenly ended.  He wasn't very strong handling domestic issues, particularly economic ones, and had a very hard time connecting with the "common man" (ironically, something his son does extremely well).

* Regan is a personal favorite of mine, despite not agreeing with him on many issues.  He certainly had his foibles (mishandling AIDS, Iran/Contra, the star wars program, ketchup as a vegtable, etc).  But in the end, I felt he was a strong president who projected strength and decisiveness, but in an intellgent way (as opposed to G.W. Bush).
 
* Carter was terrible, for the various reasons already mentioned.  He's done great things since being president, but his presidency itself still sucked ass.

* Ford was up there with Millard Fillmore for the "most mediocre president" award.  He will be remembered in history mostly for being clumsy (and even that is mostly based on SNL comedy skits).

* Nixon is one of the least popular presidents, and frequently gets slotted as the worst.  Personally, the whole Watergate thing didn't bother me so much so I'd rate him a bit higher (though still not great).

* Johnson had some good domestic policies, but his terrible mishandling of Vietnam will always overshadow those accomplishments.

* JFK is one of the most over-rated presidents IMO.  I don't think he was bad, but he certainly wasn't all that.  I don't necessarily dislike anything he did in particular, but the whole "JKF love" thing baffles me.

* Eisenhower was pretty strong in foreign and domestic policy.  But his legacy was tainted by his weak stances on civil rights and McCarthyism.

Quote from: John MorrowHe's still been better for America that Jimmy Carter who presided over double-digit inflation, high unemployment, an oil shortage, neglected the military (talk to someone who served during the Carter years), failed to successfully negotiate a nuclear reduction treaty, gave up the Panama Canal, lost Iran to Islamic radicals and couldn't deal effectively with the hostage crisis, dealt with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by boycotting the Moscow Olympics and started the funding of Islamic fundamentalist to resist the USSR that Reagan often solely gets blamed for, didn't prevent the Iran-Iraq war, didn't really do anything to bring order to Lebanon (are any of these countries sounding familiar yet?), and won a Nobel Prize for a peace treaty that got Anwar Sadat murdered and still hasn't produced peace.  If you look at the vast majority of trouble spots for the US now (including Korea), you'll often find a Carter policy or an event during the Carter presidency that contributed to it.

In general I agree that Carter was a crappy president, but there's a couple of points here: the panama canal, really? You think that the US should still have control of that... what, just because? Manifest destiny? What?

And getting a nobel prize for the peace talks that got Anwar Sadat murdered and didn't produce peace doesn't seem like a valid criticism; given that the point was the efforts made toward peace.  I mean it didn't work, of course, but it represented an effort made where others had not and do not now make any efforts at all.

But yes, on the whole I agree he was a bad president. He was also probably one of the nicest guys to be president, and was easily the most sincerely CHRISTIAN president the U.S. has had in at least the last century, and the way he lives his christianity puts other people like Bush to utter shame.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe person or the administration?

As a person, he represents the worst of showman candidacies and puppet presidencies.  As an administration, it represents the worst of ideogoguery over practical leadership.  On both counts, it's among the lows for US presidencies.

!i!

Worst?


 Teapot dome anyone?

Then there was the one who was President for less than a month.


- Ed C.

Quote from: jgants* Regan is a personal favorite of mine,

I would think you could spell his name then. :p

Quote* JFK is one of the most over-rated presidents IMO.  I don't think he was bad, but he certainly wasn't all that.  I don't necessarily dislike anything he did in particular, but the whole "JKF love" thing baffles me.

I'm guessing you weren't alive when he was president, then?

Quote* Nixon is one of the least popular presidents, and frequently gets slotted as the worst. Personally, the whole Watergate thing didn't bother me so much so I'd rate him a bit higher (though still not great).

Really? Freaking WATERGATE "didn't bother me so much"?
Just for that, you have won a spot on the political panel.  Even though I'm guessing just from your comments that you probably didn't live for or personally remember the Nixon presidency either; or possibly even Reagan's.

RPGPundit

Quote from: KoltarThen there was the one who was President for less than a month.


- Ed C.

Harrison you mean? I don't think the dude had TIME to be a bad president.

And its true that there were some spectacularly bad presidents in the last century; but I don't think any of them quite pulled off the trifecta of massive needless bloodthirsty war, destroying America's reputation and international prestige, and possibly irreparably harming the delicate balance that the constitution and civil liberties provide, possibly destroying freedom in America forever ironically in the name of claiming to want to "protect" it from a gang of cavedwellers who could never have hurt it in the first place.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm guessing you weren't alive when he was president, then?

Even though I wasn't, there are plenty of people who were alive during his presidency didn't vote for him and don't think he was a very good President, so I'm not sure why that matters.  My father never liked him.

While I personally think he was making the best decision he could at the time, he got us involved in Vietnam.  He botched the Bay of Pigs.  He appointed his bother Attorney General.  He bugged the Oval Office.  Hid his Addison's disease from the public (something that would be scandalous today).  Yes, he did some good things, too, like starting the Moon Landing program and cutting taxes to stimulate the economy but he wasn't as great as people like to think he was.  The clue that a lot of mythology making was involved in his presidency should be the association of the name "Camelot" with it.  Of course even the well-liked Eisenhower fumbled pretty badly with the U2 flights, so while hindsight can be 20/20, it also often has a distinctly rose-colored tint to it.

Quote from: John MorrowHe's still been better for America that Jimmy Carter...

No, not really.  He and his administration have not been any better for the US.  For all of the damage the Bush administration has done to our nation, both domestically and internationally, the ripple effects will be seen for decades to come.  Just like what you cite about Carter, only we don't have the benefit of hindsight just yet.

Also, please note that I neither said nor implied anything about his party affiliation.  However, for the sake of clarity, I'll add that his administration has disgraced the Republican party to a degree commensurate to the Carter adiminstration's effect on the Democratic party.

!i!

Quote from: jgants* G.W. Bush is terrible, absolutely terrible.  One of the worst presidents ever.

In retrospect, I don't think he's going to be seen that way.  There have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11, the Iraq War, while not going all that well, is still no Vietnam (no matter how much the press wants to make it one), the economy has been pretty decent given the shape it was in early in his presidency, he added drug benfits to Medicare, appointed two Supreme Court justices, and got re-elected.  If history treats him badly, it's going to be for the same reason why historians harp on Iran-Contra as if that was the only thing that happened during the Reagan presidency or pretend that Jimmy Carter was actually a good president and ignore Kennedy's flaws -- political bias.

For those who say, "What about the Patriot Act?" I'll ask how much the WW2 internment camps taint FDR's presidency.  For those who say, "What about Iraq?"  I ask how much Vietnam taints the record of JFK and, over time, even Johnson is being rehabilitated in that regard.  For those who ask, "What about his spending?"  Spending, the deficit, and the debt also skyrocketed during the Reagan presidency.  All of these things are terribly important to people right here and now, but I'm not sure that they forever hang around Bush's neck like an albatross because I'm not sure that history will consider them as important as a lot of people do today.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNo, not really.  He and his administration have not been any better for the US.  For all of the damage the Bush administration has done to our nation, both domestically and internationally, the ripple effects will be seen for decades to come.  Just like what you cite about Carter, only we don't have the benefit of hindsight just yet.

What damage has the Bush administration done domestically?  Do we have double-digit inflation?  Gas lines?  Double-digit interest rates?  High unemployment?  We did during the Carter administration.  Do we have all Muslims being rounded up and put in internment caps, the way the Japanese were rounded up during the FDR administration?  Do we have massive race riots in America's cities the way we did during the Johnson administration?

Interntationally, do we have friendly governments being overthrown by anti-American radicals?  We did during the Carter administration.  Have we suffered 16,500 deaths in one year in a foreign military action?  Are we drafting people to fight in the war?  That's what happened during the Johnson administration.  

Yes, I know Bush has had plenty of problems and made plenty of mistakes.  I know that deficit spending is out of control.  But a little perspective is called for.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAlso, please note that I neither said nor implied anything about his party affiliation.  However, for the sake of clarity, I'll add that his administration has disgraced the Republican party to a degree commensurate to the Carter adiminstration's effect on the Democratic party.

I agree with the spirit of that statement but not the degree.  Bush was, after al, elected to a second term in office.  

A big part of the difference is that the mainstream press seems vested in the idea of rehabilitating Carter and tearing down Bush, a point made painfully clear by the fact that Dan Rather was willing to ruin his career to dig up dirt on Bush's Vietnam-era record (and issue Bush wasn't running on) but seemed quite disinterested at looking at the irregularities in Kerry's Vietnam-era record (and issue he was running on), of which there were many (e.g., Why were the record he released signed by Ronald Reagan's secretary of defense?  What happened to the originals and were they changed?).

In terms of aesthetics and entertainment, the Nixon administration is far and away my favorite.

Quote from: RPGPunditI would think you could spell his name then. :p

I must have been confusing Reagan with his chief of staff, Don Regan.  :D

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm guessing you weren't alive when he was president, then?

I'm only 31.  I've been alive for Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush.  

The whole 60's cultural thing does nothing for me.  Again, I'm not saying JFK was bad or anything, I just don't get why he gets so much love.  I guess you had to be there.

Quote from: RPGPunditReally? Freaking WATERGATE "didn't bother me so much"?
Just for that, you have won a spot on the political panel.  Even though I'm guessing just from your comments that you probably didn't live for or personally remember the Nixon presidency either; or possibly even Reagan's.

See, for me Nixon is the converse of JFK.  I equally don't understand the whole "Nixon hate" thing (again, not being from the 60's).

And Watergate - well, that was bad and all...but the stuff I've seen...Iran/Contra, Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, Patriot Act...seems just as bad or worse.  But again, it's probably a temporal proximity thing.

QuoteThere have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11

God I hate this statement.  given how many terrorist attacks there were prior, and the general odds involved, it's about as useful as suggesting the President's policies regarding meteor strikes must be working because "well, there hasn't been a meteor strike while he was president".

Quote from: J ArcaneGod I hate this statement.

Ditto.  It's selling polar bear repellant below the Arctic Circle.

!i!

Quote from: jgantsSee, for me Nixon is the converse of JFK.  I equally don't understand the whole "Nixon hate" thing (again, not being from the 60's).

He was a very effective administrator, but he was also one of the last holdouts from the McCarthy era of hamfisted, paranoid political control.  It was a particular flavor of controlling behavior that led him to believe that he was within his rights to break the law with regard to surreptitious investigation and evidential procedure.

!i!

Quote from: jgantsAnd Watergate - well, that was bad and all...but the stuff I've seen...Iran/Contra, Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, Patriot Act...seems just as bad or worse.  But again, it's probably a temporal proximity thing.

I would say that getting caught orchestrating and then covering up an illegal spying operation against the main opposition political party in an election year in a nation which (at the time) was supposedly the shining example of democracy standing in contrast to Soviet tyranny is pretty fucking bad, all things considered. Generally, it's the Mugabes and Musharrafs of this world who pull that kind of shit, not the leaders of actual democratic nations. It is only a few steps down from there to arresting your opponents on trumped-up charges and having the police beat the shit out of anyone who complains.

Nixon's stated outlook on the whole thing, in his famous interview with David Frost years after the fact, was "if the President of the United States does it, it's not a crime". Not only does that fly in the face of the principles underlying the Constitution, it also spits in the eye of Magna Carta, and by extension pretty much the entire structure of common law which the US inherited from Britain. The attitude that anyone can be said to be "above the law" is absolutely poisonous to the idea of a free and fair society.

Quote from: John MorrowFor those who say, "What about the Patriot Act?" I'll ask how much the WW2 internment camps taint FDR's presidency.

I would think that the difference is that FDR was seen as an otherwise good and loved president who did something that in retrospect was seen as a terrible mistake.
Bush's presidency has been nothing but a series of terrible mistakes.

RPGPundit

Bush is an Andrew-Johnson-esque low point in American history. His administration is the synergistic result of incompetence and malevolent intentions - they can't even do the questionable shit they want to do properly. Saying "Carter was bad" just ducks the question about the quality of the Bush presidency.

Quote from: RPGPunditI would think that the difference is that FDR was seen as an otherwise good and loved president who did something that in retrospect was seen as a terrible mistake.
Bush's presidency has been nothing but a series of terrible mistakes.

FDR was a president who made plenty of mistakes, too, but like Kennedy, he had a press that was so wrapped around his fingers they didn't let the American public know that he couldn't walk.  I'm sure Bush and the War in Iraq would look at whole lot better under WW2 or even early-1960s standards of journalism, too.

Quote from: J ArcaneGod I hate this statement.  given how many terrorist attacks there were prior, and the general odds involved, it's about as useful as suggesting the President's policies regarding meteor strikes must be working because "well, there hasn't been a meteor strike while he was president".

So does that mean that you believe that if nothing changed after 9/11, their still wouldn't have been more terrorist attacks?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaDitto.  It's selling polar bear repellant below the Arctic Circle.

Polar bears can be found below the Arctic Circle. (http://www.astronomy-images.com/day-images/PolarBears/polar_bears.htm)

Look man,
 George Bush passes the beer test  - if he was still drinking.
Most people, BOTH election years would buy that guy a beer.

..They just don't want to say they like him or not.

 I did make a political "telemarketer" break from her script in 2004. She was calling trying to get a donation for the Republican party. I toldher that if she could send me pictures of the BUSH daughters, Jenna and Barbara - then I might send her 20 or 25 bucks.

I could tell she was both surprised and on the verge of laughing (mainly from the unexpected). I must have been the first person that she called all night that had a sense of humor.  She did call right as my game session was supposed to start,.


- Ed C.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineBush is an Andrew-Johnson-esque low point in American history. His administration is the synergistic result of incompetence and malevolent intentions - they can't even do the questionable shit they want to do properly. Saying "Carter was bad" just ducks the question about the quality of the Bush presidency.

When someone claims that the Bush presidency is a noteworthy low among all presidents or all presidents in the last 100 years or so, it's important to look at the competition for comparison to see if the claim is legitimate.  Sure, you can criticize the quality of the Bush presidency but I think that raises the question of why the quality of the Carter presidency, for example, isn't criticized and, in fact, he's praised as some sort of enlightened statesman that can do no wrong.  Similarly, when people rant about the gap between rich and poor growing under the Reagan or either Bush presidencies, it makes one wonder why similar complaints weren't raised during the Clinton presidency, when the gap also widened not only substantially but to a larger degree than during some of those other periods.  And people wonder why so many people believe that the media has a left-wing bias.

Quote from: John MorrowSo does that mean that you believe that if nothing changed after 9/11, their still wouldn't have been more terrorist attacks?

I think that 9/11 was largely a singular event, and that if anything, the resultant buildup of both paranoia and bureaucracy only makes it abundantly clear to the world that, yes, terrorism does work on us, it works on us very well.  

I think a more measured approach would likely have done less harm overall in terms of our global image, but that in general, the odds of a terrorist attack are still as close to fucking nil as they've ever been.

I mean really, besides 9/11, how many other terror attacks can you think of, let lone any that even approach that scale?  OK City, and then what?

Quote from: RPGPunditIn general I agree that Carter was a crappy president, but there's a couple of points here: the panama canal, really? You think that the US should still have control of that... what, just because? Manifest destiny? What?

I included that there just for you.  While I don't have a problem with it in theory, I'm not particularly happy with the way Carter handled it.  For example, during the campaign, he promised that he wouldn't give up control of the Canal.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd getting a nobel prize for the peace talks that got Anwar Sadat murdered and didn't produce peace doesn't seem like a valid criticism; given that the point was the efforts made toward peace.  I mean it didn't work, of course, but it represented an effort made where others had not and do not now make any efforts at all.

It didn't produce peace and may, in fact, have made things worse.  Should we hand out Nobel Prizes for wishing on a star for peace on earth regardless of the results?  Shouldn't people get prizes for results, not intentions?

Quote from: RPGPunditBut yes, on the whole I agree he was a bad president. He was also probably one of the nicest guys to be president, and was easily the most sincerely CHRISTIAN president the U.S. has had in at least the last century, and the way he lives his christianity puts other people like Bush to utter shame.

Actually, there are people who disagree with that assessment, as well, and claim that he could and can be quite the liar (here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001796.html), here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/jimmy-carter-is-a-liar-_b_43233.html),  and then there is Robert Novak who says, "Well, I think Bill Clinton was a minor league liar compared to Jimmy Carter. Carter would just lie for the sake of lying. He was absolutely incredible." and "A habitual liar who modified the truth to suit his own purposes" and has some nifty anecdotes to explain why he feels that way).  As for his Christianity, what makes it so sincere, in your opinion?

Quote from: John MorrowWhen someone claims that the Bush presidency is a noteworthy low among all presidents or all presidents in the last 100 years or so, it's important to look at the competition for comparison to see if the claim is legitimate.  Sure, you can criticize the quality of the Bush presidency but I think that raises the question of why the quality of the Carter presidency, for example, isn't criticized and, in fact, he's praised as some sort of enlightened statesman that can do no wrong.  

That's a red herring. You brought up Carter, and no one has either praised, or even really defended him as a politician on this thread. The majority of responses have been very critical of him in fact.

Is your argument that Bush is not a bad president when compared with Jimmy Carter's mishandling of just about everything? If so, what has he done that is better?

Quote from: J ArcaneI think that 9/11 was largely a singular event, and that if anything, the resultant buildup of both paranoia and bureaucracy only makes it abundantly clear to the world that, yes, terrorism does work on us, it works on us very well.

Yes, it works about as well as it worked for the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, when they expected America to roll over and give in.

Quote from: J ArcaneI think a more measured approach would likely have done less harm overall in terms of our global image, but that in general, the odds of a terrorist attack are still as close to fucking nil as they've ever been.

On what basis do you assume that the odds of a terrorist attack are close to nil?

Quote from: J ArcaneI mean really, besides 9/11, how many other terror attacks can you think of, let lone any that even approach that scale?  OK City, and then what?

The 1993 WTC bombing.  The intent there was to also topple the Towers but they parked the truck in the wrong place.  That would have killed more people than 9/11 did because the Towers would have been more full at the time.  And we have no idea how many other plots were foiled at various points in their planning or execution, both before and after 9/11.

QuoteYes, it works about as well as it worked for the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, when they expected America to roll over and give in.

There is so much wrong with that analogy that I must simply conclude this conversation, because I don't have the patience.

You win.  Yes, the acts of the 9/11 terrorists were exactly like that of a massive invading army from a major world imperial power.  totally the same thing.  

:rolleyes:

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat's a red herring.

When the issue at hand is whether or not a president is a notably bad president or among the worst, bringing up other bad presidents for comparison is not a red herring at all.  It's called "testing the claim".

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou brought up Carter, and no one has either praised, or even really defended him as a politician on this thread. The majority of responses have been very critical of him in fact.

Correct.  So let's go a step further and do the comparison that everyone was avoiding.  Has Bush been worse for the US an the world than Jimmy Carter?

If so, how?

If not, then why is Bush being singled out for scorn in a way that Jimmy Carter rarely if ever is or was?

And then we can compare Bush to some other awful Presidents.  

Is it fair to claim that Bush is a bad president?  While I don't entirely agree on many common points of complaint, I can understand why people make that claim.  Is Bush the worst or one of the worst presidents in US history or has Bush done more damage to the United States, civil rights, the world, etc. than any other president or any other recent president?  I think that's nothing but hyperbole, which is my point.  To make that claim, you have to seriously compare Bush with other Presidents and there were some pretty awful ones in the past.

I also think it helps to illustrate the press bias that many people claim doesn't exist.  The disparate treatment of Carter and Bush, like the disparate treatment of Kerry's and Bush's Vietnam-era military record, suggests a mighty big bias.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIs your argument that Bush is not a bad president when compared with Jimmy Carter's mishandling of just about everything? If so, what has he done that is better?

I think Jimmy Carter set the stage for almost everything that people complain about from Ronald Reagan or either Bush era, including Iran-Contra (Jimmy lost Iran to the Ayatollahs and Nicaragua to the Sandanistas -- yes, I expect RPGPundit to defend the Sandanistas here because he's apparently never met a murderous left-wing totalitarian regime he didn't love) and Afghanistan (Jimmy started the funding to the Muslim fundamentalists that Reagan gets solely blamed for).  Had he had a better grip on world affairs instead of talking world affairs with Amy, he might have been able to tip the course of history before the momentum we have today really started to build behind these problems.  And, yes, you can toss me the 20/20 hindsight defense and I'd be happy to consider that if the same consideration gets thrown Bush's way.

Quote from: John MorrowWhen someone claims that the Bush presidency is a noteworthy low among all presidents or all presidents in the last 100 years or so, it's important to look at the competition for comparison to see if the claim is legitimate.  Sure, you can criticize the quality of the Bush presidency but I think that raises the question of why the quality of the Carter presidency, for example, isn't criticized and, in fact, he's praised as some sort of enlightened statesman that can do no wrong.

Probably because the feeling that the vast majority of people get from Carter is that he was sincerely trying to do a good job, but was just really incompetent as a president; whereas with Bush the guy exudes the feeling of not giving a fuck about anyone or what anyone thinks, and more than occasionally of intentional malignancy.
So Carter was fucking up America by accident, whereas Bush is fucking up America on purpose for his own evil reasons.

QuoteSimilarly, when people rant about the gap between rich and poor growing under the Reagan or either Bush presidencies, it makes one wonder why similar complaints weren't raised during the Clinton presidency, when the gap also widened not only substantially but to a larger degree than during some of those other periods.

Possibly because Clinton presided over the greatest period of economic prosperity in 20th century american history?

QuoteAnd people wonder why so many people believe that the media has a left-wing bias.

Yes, clearly Fox news and co. have been nothing but foulmouthed liars in their baseless attacks on the Bush presidency while doing everything in their power to make the democrats look good... :rolleyes:

PLEASE, motherfucker. When the largest media conglomerates in the world are all under the control of known right-wing fanatics (Murdoch, Conrad Black, etc), that old chestnut about the media being a left-wing conspiracy really goes out the fucking window.  The media hasn't had a left wing bias since the early 80s, when it went from being a hideout for hippie drug-addled marxists fresh from poli-sci courses, pot binges and anti-war protests at Berkeley, to being a BIG motherfucking BUSINESS.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowAs for his Christianity, what makes it so sincere, in your opinion?

The fact that as well as actually being a regular churchgoer and not just when there are cameras pointed his way or when on the campaign trail, Carter has gone on to try to live his life by Christian values at any cost. During his presidency it hurt him because his Christian reluctance to commit violence (remember, contrary to what Bush seems to want people to believe, Jesus does not generally approve of blowing people to fucking pieces) was interpreted as being too weak to "do what it takes".

After his presidency, the guy has dedicated huge amounts of his time to charity work. And I don't mean high-paying charity balls with skull & bone buddies; I mean going out and fucking building houses for the homeless.

And, pathetically, these are some of the reasons why so many right wingers hate Carter. Because his sincere humble peace-loving Christianity reminds everyone of just how fake and slimy and un-christlike the tacked-on fanaticism and prosperity-christianty of the Right Wingers really is. He makes Bush & all the christian coalition fuckers look bad, and takes away their ability to claim that the democrats are the moral degenerates (of course, these days that's hard for a lot of other reasons, like the fact that every time there's a gay sex scandal with a lawmaker and a (possibly underaged) boy, said lawmaker is one of the Republicans that's been preaching about how 'teh gay is the evil' for the last 20 years).

RPGPundit

Hell...I'd even buy Pundit a beer ...still.


 can you imagine pUndit and George Bush at the same table, drinking beer...and playing an RPG?


 By-the-way, BABYLON 5 is George W. Bush's favorite Science Fiction TV show. Its in his bio somewhere.

Quote from: J ArcaneThere is so much wrong with that analogy that I must simply conclude this conversation, because I don't have the patience.

The purpose of Pearl Harbor was to so shock and debilitate the Americans that they wouldn't want to fight the Japanese because the Japanese knew (or at least those who were objective about it knew) that the Japanese could not beat the United States in a straight-on fight.  But the result was that the United States attacked and conquered Japan.

When terrorists backed by Afghanistan attacked the United States, do you think that they actually wanted the United States to attack Afghanistan, topple the Taliban, and install a new government?  

Quote from: J ArcaneYou win.  Yes, the acts of the 9/11 terrorists were exactly like that of a massive invading army from a major world imperial power.  totally the same thing.

Yes, all analogies must be exact in every detail to be useful, right?

Quote from: KoltarHell...I'd even buy Pundit a beer ...still.


 can you imagine pUndit and George Bush at the same table, drinking beer...and playing an RPG?


 By-the-way, BABYLON 5 is George W. Bush's favorite Science Fiction TV show. Its in his bio somewhere.

Then A rabbi, a franciscan momnk,  a 7 foot tall white rabbit and Ron Edwards walks into that bar.......

Morrow> Once again, what has Bush done that has been better than what Carter did? Why is Bush better than Carter. You are flogging a dead horse - no one here is defending Carter except in the most limited way. What we want to know is: So what? What about Carter's behaviour exonerates Bush's?

Quote from: RPGPunditThe fact that as well as actually being a regular churchgoer and not just when there are cameras pointed his way or when on the campaign trail, Carter has gone on to try to live his life by Christian values at any cost.

You really think you can measure a good Christian by how often they go to church?

Do his Christian values include the lying many people have accused him of?  In Iowa in 1976, for example, he told Catholic audiences that he opposed abortion while he told feminist groups that he supported abortion rights.  So which position was his Christian one?

Quote from: RPGPunditDuring his presidency it hurt him because his Christian reluctance to commit violence (remember, contrary to what Bush seems to want people to believe, Jesus does not generally approve of blowing people to fucking pieces) was interpreted as being too weak to "do what it takes".

Who said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."?  As the professor who taught my Bible as Literature class in college put it (he was a big fan of Liberation Theology in Latin America, by the way), the simplistic, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so..." view of the Buddy Jesus really isn't what's in the Bible.  

Quote from: RPGPunditAfter his presidency, the guy has dedicated huge amounts of his time to charity work. And I don't mean high-paying charity balls with skull & bone buddies; I mean going out and fucking building houses for the homeless.

And it all comes back to Jimmy Carter and Habitat for Humanity.  Tell me this.  If George W. Bush went out and built some homes for Habitat for Humanity, would you believe it was because he was a good Christian or that it was a cynical attempt to improve his image?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineMorrow> Once again, what has Bush done that has been better than what Carter did? Why is Bush better than Carter.

The answer is in the question you aren't asking.  What did Carter do that was worse that Bush?  That answers the question of why Bush is better than Carter.  I detailed some of that earlier.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou are flogging a dead horse - no one here is defending Carter except in the most limited way. What we want to know is: So what? What about Carter's behaviour exonerates Bush's?

Carter's behavior doesn't exonerate Bush.  Pay attention to what I'm claiming.  What I'm claiming is that the quality of Carter's presidency demonstrates that claims that Bush's presidency are particularly bad and worse than those of any other recent president are hyperbole.

I think people could use a little historical perspective and a little awareness of bias in interpretation and reporting.

EDIT: Please ignore this post... I am so horribly off this thread's topic.

Quote from: John MorrowThe answer is in the question you aren't asking.  What did Carter do that was worse that Bush?  That answers the question of why Bush is better than Carter.  I detailed some of that earlier.

You haven't actually made a comparison of the two. You've just kept on talking about bad things Carter did whenever someone brings up Bush.

QuoteCarter's behavior doesn't exonerate Bush.  Pay attention to what I'm claiming.  What I'm claiming is that the quality of Carter's presidency demonstrates that claims that Bush's presidency are particularly bad and worse than those of any other recent president are hyperbole.

Did anyone claim this? Many people certainly said that Bush was a low point in American history, and one of the worst presidents, but I didn't see anyone claim that he is exclusively the worst president in history. It is possible for both Bush and Carter to be bad presidents (as is in fact the case).

QuoteI think people could use a little historical perspective and a little awareness of bias in interpretation and reporting.

It's unclear why you think this is relevant, since the opinions you claim are due to "bias in interpretation and reporting" are not held by anyone on this thread.

Quote from: John MorrowThe 1993 WTC bombing.  The intent there was to also topple the Towers but they parked the truck in the wrong place.  That would have killed more people than 9/11 did because the Towers would have been more full at the time.  And we have no idea how many other plots were foiled at various points in their planning or execution, both before and after 9/11.

So, we have - at best - only one Islamist terror attack against the US mainland that reaches fruition every 8 years. It's only been 6 years since 9/11. I would say that "there's been no terror attacks on US soil since 9/11" is a pretty hollow boast, especially considering since there's been plenty of attacks against US targets (mainly the military) and allies.

The mainland US honestly has no idea of what it's like to face a serious, sustained terror campaign. We do in Britain, thanks to the troubles in Northern Ireland. Really, the US mainland has as much (if not more) to worry about from domestic terrorists (as represented by the Unabomber and Tim McVeigh) as it does from al-Qaida. Islamist terrorists, when they do attack the US mainland (ie, both times they went after the WTC), only do so to make a propaganda point - to prove that they can. That's why, both times, they went for the WTC - it's a big fat flashy target. Their main area of concern is the Middle East and Islamic world in general, and (currently) Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel in particular, and that's where the bulk of their efforts go. Islamist terrorists have killed more Muslims than they have Americans.

Quote from: KoltarHell...I'd even buy Pundit a beer ...still.


 can you imagine pUndit and George Bush at the same table, drinking beer...and playing an RPG?

It won't end well. Bush is a reformed alcoholic who (we are told) tries his hardest to stay on the wagon. Alcoholics don't stop at one beer - Bush will go to far, end up on a bender, and vomit all over the rulebooks. Pundit will have to hold him down and yank his car keys out of his pocket to stop him from trying to drive home, try and find the number of Bush's Alcholics Anonymous partner, call Laura Bush to break the news to her... it'll be a huge mess. Don't wish that sort of hassle on the Pundit.

Quote from: John MorrowThe purpose of Pearl Harbor was to so shock and debilitate the Americans that they wouldn't want to fight the Japanese because the Japanese knew (or at least those who were objective about it knew) that the Japanese could not beat the United States in a straight-on fight.  But the result was that the United States attacked and conquered Japan.

When terrorists backed by Afghanistan attacked the United States, do you think that they actually wanted the United States to attack Afghanistan, topple the Taliban, and install a new government?

Well, if their aim was to provoke the US into launching a series of wars - some justifiable like Afghanistan, some highly questionable like Iraq - thus expending its military superiority and making it ever-more unpopular in the world at large, they certainly got what they wanted.

You might want to remember that Pearl Harbour was a massive attack on a big shipyard that was intended to cripple the US navy in the Pacific. At best, al-Qaida has perhaps enough people and resources to launch a frontal assault on one US military base, and it'd probably lose if it tried. Terror groups are not governments.

We had all these exciting arrests in Canada of supposed terrorist plots.  A few years later, quietly and slowly they are either releasing the suspects or downgrading the charges.  Otherwise, it's been a bunch of innocent citizens of middle eastern descent locked up for no apparent reason other than being on someone's list or having a tourist guidebook in their car.

The excitement around terrorism in North America is so much vaster than any actual terrorism, in whatever stage of planning it may be.  America was looking for an excuse to get angry and resentful and toss all its values out the window and 9/11 was the perfect opportunity.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, clearly Fox news and co. have been nothing but foulmouthed liars in their baseless attacks on the Bush presidency while doing everything in their power to make the democrats look good... :rolleyes:

FOX NEWS!!! LOOK!! THERE'S A MEDIA OUTLET WITH A CONSERVATIVE BENT!!! FOX NEWS!!!

The rolled eyes simply make the argument.

Dipshit.

Quote from: RPGPunditPLEASE, motherfucker. When the largest media conglomerates in the world are all under the control of known right-wing fanatics (Murdoch, Conrad Black, etc), that old chestnut about the media being a left-wing conspiracy really goes out the fucking window.  The media hasn't had a left wing bias since the early 80s, when it went from being a hideout for hippie drug-addled marxists fresh from poli-sci courses, pot binges and anti-war protests at Berkeley, to being a BIG motherfucking BUSINESS.

You have simply got to be kidding.  One?  One Media Conglomerate run by a guy who plays both sides of the fence but is decidedly (from what I've seen) conservative, and this exonerates the rest?  CNN/Time Warner? They somehow are under the control of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?

Blinders.  Check for them.

PS Hillary called, she wants her rant back.

Edit: The fucking BBC - hear of them? They have no ideological bent, do they?

Yeah now its news thats bare and phalanxed on some networks....



- Ed C.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineMorrow> Once again, what has Bush done that has been better than what Carter did? Why is Bush better than Carter. You are flogging a dead horse - no one here is defending Carter except in the most limited way. What we want to know is: So what? What about Carter's behaviour exonerates Bush's?

Bush has not cut the budgets for energy research or space technology development. Those both happened during the Carter administration, for an inside perspective on it read A Step Farther Out by Jerry Pournelle.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd it all comes back to Jimmy Carter and Habitat for Humanity.  Tell me this.  If George W. Bush went out and built some homes for Habitat for Humanity, would you believe it was because he was a good Christian or that it was a cynical attempt to improve his image?

The mind boggles when that time comes...which is I think the point others are making here.  

Carter comes off as well intentioned but incompetant.  Bush comes off as manipulative, self-serving and incompetant.

Quote from: John MorrowWhen terrorists backed by Afghanistan attacked the United States, do you think that they actually wanted the United States to attack Afghanistan, topple the Taliban, and install a new government?  

The purpose of terrorism is to provoke an intemperate reaction that hurts the target nation politically. If a bunch of radicals can provoke a powerful enemy, they not only gain stature in the eyes of their community for standing up to a powerful enemy, but the violent reaction they provoke serves to radicalize the community further.

It's not a tactic of deterence at all; it's a political tactic for radicals to increase their stature in their own community.

The reaction of the U.S. to the Sept 11 attack - the invasion and occupation of a major Arab country - was beyond the wildest dreams of Osama bin Laden. He really couldn't have hoped to provoke a response better suited to radicalizing the Arab and Muslim world and swelling the ranks of the jihadists.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect.  So let's go a step further and do the comparison that everyone was avoiding.  Has Bush been worse for the US an the world than Jimmy Carter?

If so, how?

At the end of Carter's term the US was still seen as a respectable world power, and the bastion of freedom by much of the world; in fact it was seen as more that than it had been in a very long time (since before Nixon). Carter was actually good for the US's foreign relations.

By the end of Bush's term, the US will be seen as pretty much a rogue state, despised by all, with no moral grounding to make any kind of a claim about either democracy or human rights or torture or civil liberties or just about any other subject because it has demonstrated its utter hypocrisy on all of those accounts.  The next president's toughest job will be to try to restore at least some of America's image abroad.

Quotethe Sandanistas -- yes, I expect RPGPundit to defend the Sandanistas here because he's apparently never met a murderous left-wing totalitarian regime he didn't love)

I don't like any totalitarian regime. But the consistent problem regarding socialist/communist movements in latinamerica is that they were the better of two options compared to the other guy at almost every occasion. Its what props up fuckheads like Castro and Hugo Chavez, and yes, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua (note their recent re-election; they continue to have popular support).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAt the end of Carter's term the US was still seen as a respectable world power, and the bastion of freedom by much of the world; in fact it was seen as more that than it had been in a very long time (since before Nixon). Carter was actually good for the US's foreign relations.

What planet are you living on?  He left in disgrace having been outdone by a bunch of radical extremists in Iran. It was a huge fucking blow to the stature of the US that it was seen as so ineffectual as to be able to confront a threat of that nature.

Quote from: RPGPunditBy the end of Bush's term, the US will be seen as pretty much a rogue state, despised by all, with no moral grounding to make any kind of a claim about either democracy or human rights or torture or civil liberties or just about any other subject because it has demonstrated its utter hypocrisy on all of those accounts.  The next president's toughest job will be to try to restore at least some of America's image abroad.

I agree with the last line, but not for the reasons you espouse. How was the US able to, throughout all of those years, choose stability over democracy and yet make statements about democracy with moral grounding - that was the travesty; that was the hypocrisy.

Quote from: John MorrowWhen terrorists backed by Afghanistan attacked the United States, do you think that they actually wanted the United States to attack Afghanistan, topple the Taliban, and install a new government?  

I think Bin Laden WANTED a war between the United States and the muslim world. And he pretty much got what he wanted. He played the US government.

Bin Laden doesn't really give a fuck about any single islamicist state; what he wants is to create a worldwide jihad because he believes it will lead to a new global caliphate that will right the wrongs he believes exist IN ISLAM since the 12th century onwards.
What he wants are muslims united together, all under wahabi ideals, engaged in one singleminded struggle to create an islamic superstate. And I think given what else we've seen about him, I'm willing to think that Bin Laden is smart enough to know that attacking the US would prompt exactly this sort of retaliation, and that this in turn would bring thousands and thousands of new recruits to his cause.

Hell, he may even have heard about how much George W. Bush wanted an excuse to attack Iraq; maybe one of his relatives heard about it at the dinner parties and reunions they regularly held with the Bush family, and passed on the note to Osama.  

Because of course, that's the other side of this; Bush and the PNAC wanted some kind of a terrorist incident that could give them the popular support to invade Iraq and initiate their "strategic goals" for the region.  

So really, Osama and George both got exactly what they wanted out of 9/11.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI think Bin Laden WANTED a war between the United States and the muslim world. And he pretty much got what he wanted. He played the US government.

Bin Laden doesn't really give a fuck about any single islamicist state; what he wants is to create a worldwide jihad because he believes it will lead to a new global caliphate that will right the wrongs he believes exist IN ISLAM since the 12th century onwards.

How's that working out for him?  Where's the great Caliphate?
 

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat he wants are muslims united together, all under wahabi ideals, engaged in one singleminded struggle to create an islamic superstate. And I think given what else we've seen about him, I'm willing to think that Bin Laden is smart enough to know that attacking the US would prompt exactly this sort of retaliation, and that this in turn would bring thousands and thousands of new recruits to his cause.

Yeah - trapped in Waziristan they will conquer the world. Again, how's that working for him?

And oh, if you're going to say he was successful, then you can't, in the same breath, claim there's no reason to up security.  I mean, not with thousands and thousand of new Islamic Fundamentalist Extremist Terrorists on the loose, right?

Quote from: RPGPunditHell, he may even have heard about how much George W. Bush wanted an excuse to attack Iraq; maybe one of his relatives heard about it at the dinner parties and reunions they regularly held with the Bush family, and passed on the note to Osama.  

Because of course, that's the other side of this; Bush and the PNAC wanted some kind of a terrorist incident that could give them the popular support to invade Iraq and initiate their "strategic goals" for the region.  

So really, Osama and George both got exactly what they wanted out of 9/11.

RPGPundit

Pass the tin foil.  This is getting good.

Quote from: John MorrowYou really think you can measure a good Christian by how often they go to church?

Do his Christian values include the lying many people have accused him of?  In Iowa in 1976, for example, he told Catholic audiences that he opposed abortion while he told feminist groups that he supported abortion rights.  So which position was his Christian one?

REALLY? Let me get this straight: You're going to question Carter's Christianity in comparison to George W. Bush's on the basis of who's the bigger liar?

...you sure you want to do that?

...ok...:raise:

Here's the thing: lying on the campaign trail to get elected isn't precisely a Christian act, but it is fairly mitigated by trying to be a good christian in general, and then spending your post-presidency years engaging very humbly in all kinds of charitable work.
Let's see what's the bigger lie though; is it less Christian to:
1. Lie about your position on abortion in order to get into the presidency?
2. Lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and on countless other occasions in order to be able to go and KILL people in the middle-east so that your business partners can get rich raping a country?

Hmmm... let's ponder that one.

QuoteWho said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."?  As the professor who taught my Bible as Literature class in college put it (he was a big fan of Liberation Theology in Latin America, by the way), the simplistic, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so..." view of the Buddy Jesus really isn't what's in the Bible.  

Dude, I'm a religious historian specialized in the origins of Christianity. Let me assure you that no where in the bible nor in any of the various known apocryphal or gnostic texts does Jesus ever tell anyone "Lo, thou must kill the dirty unbelievers and take their oil, and it is right to dominate and oppress other peoples for i have commanded it".  No where does he even say "kill the infidel". No where does he suggest that you should respond with violence anywhere. To believe that Jesus' "sword" comment was in any way meant to advocate some kind of violence is to misunderstand that text and the rest of Jesus' teachings entirely.

What Jesus did consistently say is "love your neighbour"; "turn the other cheek", and of course, "whatsoever you do unto the least of my brothers, that you do unto me". So by that count, George Bush has killed Jesus about 200000 times by now; waterboarded Jesus, tortured Jesus, taken degrading pictures of Jesus, illegally kidnapped Jesus, wiretapped Jesus without authorization, claimed Jesus has no human rights by refusing him prisoner of war status, possibly committed some diebold-machine electoral fraud making Jesus' vote not count, etc. etc. etc.

And let us remember, while we're talking Christian theology: "Beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath. For it is written: vengeance is mine; revenge is the Lord's".
So remember kiddies, "Revenge is the Lord's" and "Turn the other cheek" means "an eye for an eye" is not the operative way good christians behave; and certainly there's no verse I can find that says "thou shalt avenge thy daddy's assasination attempt by invading a nation and murdering great numbers of its citizenry".

QuoteAnd it all comes back to Jimmy Carter and Habitat for Humanity.  Tell me this.  If George W. Bush went out and built some homes for Habitat for Humanity, would you believe it was because he was a good Christian or that it was a cynical attempt to improve his image?

That would depend on if he did it once or twice with a bunch of cameras watching him, or if he dedicated his life to it for the next 25 years the way Carter has.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachF

Edit: The fucking BBC - hear of them? They have no ideological bent, do they?

Yes, the BBC, CBC, etc; public news networks almost inevitably have left-wing bents.  I'll give you a hint why: THEY CAN AFFORD TO.  Since they're public, subsidized etc, they do not have to be run like a business and cater to business concerns. So they are a haven for marxists and feminists and the rest of the left-wing pinko-college circus act to roll on in and set up shop.

Their existence is pretty well evidence that the rest of the news media is right wing in every way that counts.  

CNN/Time? Seriously? Watch CNN and then watch the BBC; the claim that CNN is in any way shape or form "liberal" is a bullshit cover-job.  It may be slightly less rabidly conservative than Fox, but the bias they put into their news is consistently to the right of center.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachHow's that working out for him?  Where's the great Caliphate?

Dude, he's a religious fanatic.  He's insane.  I explained his plan; I never said it was a good plan.

Its just like all those Christians who supported the Iraq war because they thought it would mean Jesus would come back like it says in Revelation. You can't expect anything from this kind of lunacy. Its religious fanaticism.

QuoteYeah - trapped in Waziristan they will conquer the world. Again, how's that working for him?

Its like Bill Maher said: "Sure, the islamo-fascists WANT to take over America; and I want to be adopted by Angelina Jolie, it doesn't mean either is gonna happen".

This doesn't mean, however, that overall the tensions and conflict between the muslim world and America haven't worsened.  That much is obvious, the U.S. is more hated by more people over there now than ever before. And every muslim they kill in Iraq means three or four more join the cause.
Bin Laden was insane in terms of what he imagined as the speed and numbers that would join him in the war against the infidel, but the basic theory has proven true.

QuoteAnd oh, if you're going to say he was successful, then you can't, in the same breath, claim there's no reason to up security.  I mean, not with thousands and thousand of new Islamic Fundamentalist Extremist Terrorists on the loose, right?

Do you mean "Up security" in the US? I certainly do think you need to do that, in effective and legal ways.  Illegal wiretap spying on Bush political enemies does NOTHING to stop Islamicist terrorists.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jeff37923Bush has not cut the budgets for energy research or space technology development. Those both happened during the Carter administration, for an inside perspective on it read A Step Farther Out by Jerry Pournelle.

On the other hand, Carter didn't engage in an attempt to fundamentally undermine the balance of powers in the constitution between the branches, nor did he condone the same level of civil rights violations.

I'd describe CNN as populist, rather than intentionally holding to any part of the spectrum. It is rightwing when it thinks that will appeal to its viewers, and it shifts to the left when it thinks that will.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineOn the other hand, Carter didn't engage in an attempt to fundamentally undermine the balance of powers in the constitution between the branches, nor did he condone the same level of civil rights violations.

One man's undermine is another man's restore.

Quote from: James J SkachOne man's undermine is another man's restore.

"Restore"?! When in the history of the United States has the executive branch held or even claimed to hold as much power as Bush claims for it now??

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThis doesn't mean, however, that overall the tensions and conflict between the muslim world and America haven't worsened.  That much is obvious, the U.S. is more hated by more people over there now than ever before. And every muslim they kill in Iraq means three or four more join the cause.
Bin Laden was insane in terms of what he imagined as the speed and numbers that would join him in the war against the infidel, but the basic theory has proven true.

Have you seen some of the rather sparse survey information on attitudes towards the US in the Middle East.  The US went from 85% hating it to 95% hating it. Really. Go look it up. The numbers might not be exact (it's been a long time since I looked and I can't find my bookmarks), but it's damn close.

And those numbers were from 2004-2005 - I wonder if they've shifted at all.

to simply say the US is more hated fails to take into account how fucking hated it was before - which was a metric fucking ton.

Quote from: RPGPunditDo you mean "Up security" in the US? I certainly do think you need to do that, in effective and legal ways.  Illegal wiretap spying on Bush political enemies does NOTHING to stop Islamicist terrorists.

Can you produce some credible evidence, like a ruling or a finding or an indictment, to back up this?  I'm honestly asking. I would think that it would explode here in the US if it were true. Alas, I hear accusations or fears of how the various laws (see: PATRIOT Act) will be used, but no facts about how they have to date.

And really, if you're talking about wire tapping that listens to communications crossing the border, your complaints will be falling on deaf ears. It's a completely different issue than domestic-only wire-tapping.

Quote from: RPGPundit"Restore"?! When in the history of the United States has the executive branch held or even claimed to hold as much power as Bush claims for it now??

RPGPundit

You're kidding, right? Aren't you a history-type thingie or something?

Particularly post Nixon, Presidential Power was completely destroyed.

FDR?

The name Lincoln ring a bell?  He's particularly close to my heart, being an almost life-long resident of Illinois...


I'm sure Morrow could provide other examples.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, the BBC, CBC, etc; public news networks almost inevitably have left-wing bents.  I'll give you a hint why: THEY CAN AFFORD TO.  Since they're public, subsidized etc, they do not have to be run like a business and cater to business concerns. So they are a haven for marxists and feminists and the rest of the left-wing pinko-college circus act to roll on in and set up shop.

Their existence is pretty well evidence that the rest of the news media is right wing in every way that counts.  

CNN/Time? Seriously? Watch CNN and then watch the BBC; the claim that CNN is in any way shape or form "liberal" is a bullshit cover-job.  It may be slightly less rabidly conservative than Fox, but the bias they put into their news is consistently to the right of center.

RPGPundit

This is classic.  Your argument was that all the major media conglomerates were conservative.  I give a couple - hell even you do - and you want to argue over how liberal CNN is? Give up on this one, Pundy.

Wait...Right wing in every way that counts...what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Quote from: James J SkachOne man's undermine is another man's restore.

Only a big government conservative would be able to think of what Bush is doing as "restoring" something, and even then, only by cherry-picking the record.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineOnly a big government conservative would be able to think of what Bush is doing as "restoring" something, and even then, only by cherry-picking the record.

Only?  I must be one then.  Never been called that.  Don't like Big Government.  I just don't think it has anything to do with the balance of power amongst the various branches - at least not as directly as things others have pointed out in various threads (using the Judicial branch to bypass the legislative process, going crazy with the extension of government's ability to do things in the 30's, etc.)

I don't understand how the President's ability to get protected advice from anyone he/she wants has anything to do with Big Government. Or the ability of the President to carry out the constitutional duties imparted to him as Commander in Chief, for that matter.

Now if you want to discuss if those can lead to other problems, sure.  But I don't see the connection between those and Big Government.  Care to explain?

Oh...and btw...Lincoln and FDR are cherry picking?

Make up your mind first, Skach. Is FDR typical of the level of power you expect a president to hold, or do you think the expansion of the government in the 30's under him was a bad thing? You're currently holding both positions (in the same post!)

And yes, using FDR and Lincoln as examples of presidential power is cherry-picking. Both were particularly strong executives, aberrant from their predecessors and successors. Both held that power because of serious crises in America (the Civil War and the Depression / World War 2, respectively) and those powers receded as the crises did.

Of course that's the genius of a War on Terror.  The crisis never ends.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineMake up your mind first, Skach. Is FDR typical of the level of power you expect a president to hold, or do you think the expansion of the government in the 30's under him was a bad thing? You're currently holding both positions (in the same post!)

And yes, using FDR and Lincoln as examples of presidential power is cherry-picking. Both were particularly strong executives, aberrant from their predecessors and successors. Both held that power because of serious crises in America (the Civil War and the Depression / World War 2, respectively) and those powers receded as the crises did.

I don't have to, Edrine, as those two things are not necessarily linked. In FDR's case, for the purpose of the depression, he used those powers to expand the reach of government with respect to taxing and spending.  In the War years, he used them to defend the country. I, personally, abhor the former and agree with the latter.

And, of course, in saying this you show me that you've missed the point. Which is that the balance of power amongst the three branches is not necessarily linked to Big Government. It can be, but it's not absolute.

And as Callous wants to point out in the negative sense, there is a crises right now. You might not agree there is, but there's a significant portion of the population (significant enough for the President to get re-elected anyway) that believes there's something afoot.

Quote from: J ArcaneGod I hate this statement.  given how many terrorist attacks there were prior, and the general odds involved, it's about as useful as suggesting the President's policies regarding meteor strikes must be working because "well, there hasn't been a meteor strike while he was president".

If you include the 9/11 attacks, which were planned during the Clinton years, there were 8 major fundamentalist Islamic terrorist attacks during the 8 years of the Clinton presidency.  The original Trade center bombing in 93 was the first. Other than 9/11 you have the USS Cole, a couple of embassy attacks, and if I remember correctly, another ship attack.

That averages out to one attack a year, just counting the Islamic terrorists.

So, no, not at all like meteor strikes. :rolleyes:

Quote from: James J SkachYou're kidding, right? Aren't you a history-type thingie or something?

Particularly post Nixon, Presidential Power was completely destroyed.

FDR?

The name Lincoln ring a bell?  He's particularly close to my heart, being an almost life-long resident of Illinois...


I'm sure Morrow could provide other examples.

There was no occasion in history I can think of where the president had the kind of powers that Bush claims the president has/should have.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachThis is classic.  Your argument was that all the major media conglomerates were conservative.  I give a couple - hell even you do - and you want to argue over how liberal CNN is? Give up on this one, Pundy.

Wait...Right wing in every way that counts...what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

It means that CNN might have a handful of (usually deeply wussy) democratic/liberal commentators. But when it comes to the presentation and context they put news stories in, which is what really matters, and what stories they choose to highlite or fail to highlite, that's where the bias really shows.

RPGPundit

If Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck are lefty liberals by American standards, then the USA is in even more trouble than I thought.

Quote from: James J SkachI don't have to, Edrine, as those two things are not necessarily linked. In FDR's case, for the purpose of the depression, he used those powers to expand the reach of government with respect to taxing and spending.  In the War years, he used them to defend the country. I, personally, abhor the former and agree with the latter.

Actually, I don't see any difference.  In each case, Depression and WWII, increased taxes and deficit spending was used to get the country through a crisis.  I'd argue that surviving the Depression was "defending the country".  I realize that none of us were alive at that time, but by all accounts, America was in pretty dire straights.  

As to the current crisis, I won't argue we don't have one.  I'd argue it's much of our making and by tying the target to Terrorism (as opposed to a foreign nation or entity), you do guarentee that it will not end.  Thus giving your administration open-ended authority under a wartime situation.

HR - you do realize that those are both very recent additions to CNN, correct?

I mean, when Fox is kicking your ass, it tells you something about your audience. They are responding to that market.

Yet, more than not, if CNN/Time Warner had it's way? Historically speaking it has been very liberal by US standards.

Quote from: CallousActually, I don't see any difference.  In each case, Depression and WWII, increased taxes and deficit spending was used to get the country through a crisis.  I'd argue that surviving the Depression was "defending the country".  I realize that none of us were alive at that time, but by all accounts, America was in pretty dire straights.  

Indeed. It's difficult to imagine in hindsight, but in the 30s a great many Americans believed the capitalist system had failed. Not that it was going through a rough patch, or needed a bit of reform - that it had manifestly crashed and burned. And these weren't tweedy college professors, either. Millions of farmers, miners, truck drivers, etc. were thrown to the wolves during the depression, and like their counterparts in Europe and Japan they were ripe for calls for revolution and reaction.

We know how this story turned out in Germany, Italy, Japan, and most of Eastern Europe. France was thrown into near-total disarray. The foundations of Britain shook with widespread labour strife. The status quo seemed untenable in any of the liberal democracies.

FDR couldn't have been oblivious to the portentious unrest across the Atlantic. Once a communist movement gathered steam in the U.S., a fascist movement would almost certainly have risen on the right to counter it. One way or another, liberal democracy as we know it would not have survived.

Nobody knew how things would turn, but FDR knew he couldn't just sitting back and wait to see what those millions of desperate sharecroppers, out of work machinists, impoverished hillbillies, and homeless veterans would do. So he came up with the New Deal as a way to get people back to work, mitigate the worst of the misery swirling around the country, and innoculate the USA from extremism.

Fortunately, history has recognized that FDR made a wise decision. It's only now that the Depression is passing from living memory that neo-cons are coming out of the woodwork to disparage FDR with their simplistic ideological criticisms.

Quote from: RPGPunditThere was no occasion in history I can think of where the president had the kind of powers that Bush claims the president has/should have.

Please - Lincoln suspended Habaeus Corpus for US Citizens - for reals, not like everone says Bush has done, when he hasn't - and had dissenting citizens exiled. He shut down newspapers. Used Federal troops to put down riots in New York City.

I know your blind hatred for Bush makes it hard to be objective, but give it a whirl.

Quote from: WerekoalaPlease - Lincoln suspended Habaeus Corpus for US Citizens - for reals, not like everone says Bush has done, when he hasn't - and had dissenting citizens exiled. He shut down newspapers. Used Federal troops to put down riots in New York City.

Of course, he did all that during a REAL war, and one that was happening on US soil. A civil war at that. So its kind of a different situation.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditProbably because the feeling that the vast majority of people get from Carter is that he was sincerely trying to do a good job, but was just really incompetent as a president; whereas with Bush the guy exudes the feeling of not giving a fuck about anyone or what anyone thinks, and more than occasionally of intentional malignancy.

And on what do people base those feelings?  Loving appologist portrayals of Carter and hostile hatchet jobs on Bush.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo Carter was fucking up America by accident, whereas Bush is fucking up America on purpose for his own evil reasons.

Ah, so you believe in the Evil Overlord who wants to ruin the world on purpose.  I suppose you believe he cackles over dead baby seals, too, right?

You sound just like the people on the far-right who were obsessed with Clinton and imagined him in much the same way.

Quote from: RPGPunditPossibly because Clinton presided over the greatest period of economic prosperity in 20th century american history?

That doesn't change the fact that during that "period of economic prosperity", the gap between rich and poor increased dramatically.  That's apparently awful when it happens during a Republican period of economic prosperity but just fine when it happens under a Democrat.  So it's not really about the gap between rich and poor so long as the President pretends to feel the little guy's pain, right?

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, clearly Fox news and co. have been nothing but foulmouthed liars in their baseless attacks on the Bush presidency while doing everything in their power to make the democrats look good... :rolleyes:

Wow.  You can point to the one news network that actually ha a right-wing bias as a counter-example.  All of the others are, of course, unbiased or have a right-wing bias, too, right?  :rolleyes:  Where do you get such clever talking points?

Quote from: RPGPunditPLEASE, motherfucker. When the largest media conglomerates in the world are all under the control of known right-wing fanatics (Murdoch, Conrad Black, etc), that old chestnut about the media being a left-wing conspiracy really goes out the fucking window.

Control is irrelevant if it's not reflected in the reporting.  In the case of Murdoch, it is (which is why he tops every left-wing talking point list, including yours) but in plenty of other cases, it isn't.  Sure, it's not as overtly left-wing as someone like Bill Maher, and when you are stading in San Francisco, even Oakland looks like it's to the East, but that doesn't mean it is.

Why did the CBS Evening News obsess over Bush's Vietnam War era Air Natoinal Guard record, the the point of accepting badly forged documents to smear him, and ignore the huge problems in Kerry's Vietnam War era record, when Bush wasn't running on his record (and didn't even dispute the faked memos) and Kerry was running on his record?

Quote from: RPGPunditThe media hasn't had a left wing bias since the early 80s, when it went from being a hideout for hippie drug-addled marxists fresh from poli-sci courses, pot binges and anti-war protests at Berkeley, to being a BIG motherfucking BUSINESS.

Sure it's changed. :rolleyes:

You're simply a typical left-wing toady who fancies himself a moderate.  Heck, you're one of the only people here defending Carter.  Just admit it, dude, your an elitist partisan swine when it comes to politics.

Quote from: RPGPunditOf course, he did all that during a REAL war, and one that was happening on US soil. A civil war at that. So its kind of a different situation.

Don't move the goalpost, you said that NO OTHER PRESIDENT has done worse than Bush has - you didn't put qualifiers on it.

Quote from: WarthurWell, if their aim was to provoke the US into launching a series of wars - some justifiable like Afghanistan, some highly questionable like Iraq - thus expending its military superiority and making it ever-more unpopular in the world at large, they certainly got what they wanted.

I don't think that's what they wanted.

Quote from: WarthurYou might want to remember that Pearl Harbour was a massive attack on a big shipyard that was intended to cripple the US navy in the Pacific. At best, al-Qaida has perhaps enough people and resources to launch a frontal assault on one US military base, and it'd probably lose if it tried. Terror groups are not governments.

Have you ever been the the World Trade Center?  Wall Street is almost literally right around the corner and the 9/11 attacks not only shut down the Stock Exchange but also all air traffic in the United States.  No, they aren't a government and aren't going to have the resources for a frontal assault, but that doesn't mean that they can't do a lot of damange nor that they don't want to, which is why I'm sure they'd love to get their hands on nuclear weapons.

Quote from: HaffrungFortunately, history has recognized that FDR made a wise decision. It's only now that the Depression is passing from living memory that neo-cons are coming out of the woodwork to disparage FDR with their simplistic ideological criticisms.

Says a Canadian with simplistic ideological criticisms.

Quote from: walkerpWe had all these exciting arrests in Canada of supposed terrorist plots.  A few years later, quietly and slowly they are either releasing the suspects or downgrading the charges.  Otherwise, it's been a bunch of innocent citizens of middle eastern descent locked up for no apparent reason other than being on someone's list or having a tourist guidebook in their car.

How many, exactly?

Quote from: walkerpThe excitement around terrorism in North America is so much vaster than any actual terrorism, in whatever stage of planning it may be.  America was looking for an excuse to get angry and resentful and toss all its values out the window and 9/11 was the perfect opportunity.

So the whole country was just looking for a reason to get angry and resentful?  Several thousand innocent dead people, of course, did nothing to create that anger.  It was all there already, right?

Quote from: WerekoalaDon't move the goalpost, you said that NO OTHER PRESIDENT has done worse than Bush has - you didn't put qualifiers on it.

I haven't moved any goalpost: I'm saying that what Lincoln did and why he did it make him a far more redeemable president than Bush.

RPGPundit

Quote from: CallousCarter comes off as well intentioned but incompetant.  Bush comes off as manipulative, self-serving and incompetant.

It's not hard to find depictions of Bush as well intentioned and Carter as manipulative and self-serving, if you look outside of sources with a left-leaning bias.  And that's the point I'm trying to make.  Do you know either man?  Then how do you know what either man is really like?

Quote from: HaffrungThe purpose of terrorism is to provoke an intemperate reaction that hurts the target nation politically.

I'm not buying it.  Historically, the purpose of terrorism has been to get concessions, surrender, or to simply inflict revenge (which is why they tend to make demands -- see Spain after the train bombs and Australia after the Bali bombs).  If the terrorists really do believe that an "intemperate reaction", alone, is a good thing, then they are even bigger idiots than I think they are.

Quote from: HaffrungIf a bunch of radicals can provoke a powerful enemy, they not only gain stature in the eyes of their community for standing up to a powerful enemy, but the violent reaction they provoke serves to radicalize the community further.

It doesn't do them any good if their community is destroyed and lots of them are killed.  That's where this is going.

Quote from: HaffrungIt's not a tactic of deterence at all; it's a political tactic for radicals to increase their stature in their own community.

To what end?

Quote from: HaffrungThe reaction of the U.S. to the Sept 11 attack - the invasion and occupation of a major Arab country - was beyond the wildest dreams of Osama bin Laden. He really couldn't have hoped to provoke a response better suited to radicalizing the Arab and Muslim world and swelling the ranks of the jihadists.

To what end?

No. Actually, he said this:

Quote from: RPGPunditThere was no occasion in history I can think of where the president had the kind of powers that Bush claims the president has/should have.

Now he's saying that doesn't count because he sees Lincoln's reasons as more valid. Which may or may not be a valid argument - but it's a completely different fucking argument.

That's two Pundit.  First is the claim about Media, now this one.

Quote from: John MorrowIt's not hard to find depictions of Bush as well intentioned and Carter as manipulative and self-serving, if you look outside of sources with a left-leaning bias.  And that's the point I'm trying to make.  Do you know either man?  Then how do you know what either man is really like?

My mom was a friend of the family. One of 'em taught her how to cook. Fried green tomatoes and stuff.

Quote from: RPGPunditAt the end of Carter's term the US was still seen as a respectable world power, and the bastion of freedom by much of the world; in fact it was seen as more that than it had been in a very long time (since before Nixon). Carter was actually good for the US's foreign relations.

Are you kidding?  His presidency ended with a failed mission to rescue the Iranian hostages and the hostages still being held.  His public response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Olympics.  And 4 years later, when Mondale was running, he asked some blue-collar workers, who should have been his natural constituency, why they were voting for Reagan instead of him and they told him that they were actually proud to be Americans again.  

Yeah, I know your idea of the US being "respectable" is to lay down and be a doormat for the rest of the world.  That's not real respect.

Quote from: RPGPunditABy the end of Bush's term, the US will be seen as pretty much a rogue state, despised by all, with no moral grounding to make any kind of a claim about either democracy or human rights or torture or civil liberties or just about any other subject because it has demonstrated its utter hypocrisy on all of those accounts.  The next president's toughest job will be to try to restore at least some of America's image abroad.

Baloney.  If you pay any real attention to world politics, you'll notice that the respect that the US gets depends on the political bias of the governments it deals with.  When Spain had a right-wing government, it backed the Iraq War.  When a left-wing government came in, they cooled to Bush.  Similarly, Germany and Franch had left-wing governments that shifted right, and relations have warmed rarther than cooling.  And so on.  And I'm sure you don't believe that the international press has a left-wing bias, either, right?  :rolleyes:

Yes, I'm sure that through your left-wing biased tunnel, it looks like the whole world hates the US and it's all because of Bush.  The evidence suggests things are a bit more complex with that.

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't like any totalitarian regime.

You seem to make plenty of apologies for them.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut the consistent problem regarding socialist/communist movements in latinamerica is that they were the better of two options compared to the other guy at almost every occasion.

Really?  So you'd rather live in Cuba than Chile?

Quote from: RPGPunditIts what props up fuckheads like Castro and Hugo Chavez, and yes, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua (note their recent re-election; they continue to have popular support).

Have you really looked at the recent election in Nicaragua?

What percentage of the vote did Ortega get and why?

Here, let me help you.

He won with under 40% of the vote because the right was split between two candidates that cannibalized each other's votes (and their votes, combined, were higher than Orgega's).  In fact, one of he right-wing candidates brought Oliver North down to Nicaragua to help him get votes, because a sizable segment of people in Nicaragua think highly of him.

Quote from: RPGPunditI think Bin Laden WANTED a war between the United States and the muslim world. And he pretty much got what he wanted. He played the US government.

And I don't think that.  And since neither of us know bin Laden personally, we're both guessing here.

Quote from: RPGPunditBin Laden doesn't really give a fuck about any single islamicist state; what he wants is to create a worldwide jihad because he believes it will lead to a new global caliphate that will right the wrongs he believes exist IN ISLAM since the 12th century onwards.

Sure, but it's kinda hard to do that when your people are being killed left and right, isn't it?

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat he wants are muslims united together, all under wahabi ideals, engaged in one singleminded struggle to create an islamic superstate. And I think given what else we've seen about him, I'm willing to think that Bin Laden is smart enough to know that attacking the US would prompt exactly this sort of retaliation, and that this in turn would bring thousands and thousands of new recruits to his cause.

Then why do Muslim terrorist attack other Muslims?  The UK?  Spain?  Australia by way of Bali?  Were they looking to provoke attacks there, too?  Or is only the United States (and maybe Isreal) special in this regard?

Quote from: RPGPunditHell, he may even have heard about how much George W. Bush wanted an excuse to attack Iraq; maybe one of his relatives heard about it at the dinner parties and reunions they regularly held with the Bush family, and passed on the note to Osama.

So he expected 9/11 to result in Iraq getting invaded?  And Saddam acting like he was guilty of hiding something had absolutely nothing to do with that?  And Tony Blair decided to go along for the ride because he had a hankering to attack Iraq, too?

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause of course, that's the other side of this; Bush and the PNAC wanted some kind of a terrorist incident that could give them the popular support to invade Iraq and initiate their "strategic goals" for the region.

I think you've watched "The Long Kiss Goodnight" one time too many.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo really, Osama and George both got exactly what they wanted out of 9/11.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: John MorrowIt's not hard to find depictions of Bush as well intentioned and Carter as manipulative and self-serving, if you look outside of sources with a left-leaning bias.  And that's the point I'm trying to make.  Do you know either man?  Then how do you know what either man is really like?

Know either man, no.  But then none of us do, so that makes this whole thread rather moot if that's the criteria.  My quote is based on my opinion of the observed events.  As is this entire discussion, since no political discussion is really objective in any case.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineOnly a big government conservative would be able to think of what Bush is doing as "restoring" something, and even then, only by cherry-picking the record.

This is, of course, what got his father in trouble and made him a one-term President.  Like father, like son.

Quote from: SpikeIf you include the 9/11 attacks, which were planned during the Clinton years, there were 8 major fundamentalist Islamic terrorist attacks during the 8 years of the Clinton presidency.  The original Trade center bombing in 93 was the first. Other than 9/11 you have the USS Cole, a couple of embassy attacks, and if I remember correctly, another ship attack.

The attack on the USS Cole is not a terrorist attack.  It's a military attack on a military target.

Quote from: RPGPunditThere was no occasion in history I can think of where the president had the kind of powers that Bush claims the president has/should have.

Can you give some examples of the kind of power you are talking about?  Things like throwing innocent citizens into camps without a trial?  Suspending habeas corpus?  Getting the Supreme Court to change decisions to give the Federal Government more power by threatening to double the size of the Court and pack it with friendly judges?

Quote from: HaffrungIf Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck are lefty liberals by American standards, then the USA is in even more trouble than I thought.

Yes, CNN's token conservatives.  Can you name a third?

Do you think Fox News balanced or left-wing because is has Geraldo Rivera, Greta van Sustern, and Alan Colmes?

All one needs to do is watch election night coverage to see where the bias is.  The smiles and frowns are almost hilarious, especially when they are on the faces of people who claim to be unbiased.

Quote from: RPGPunditOf course, he did all that during a REAL war, and one that was happening on US soil.

I don't know about you but a big hole in the ground not far from where I'm sitting tells me that this is a REAL war on US soil.  Did you ever fly on United Flight 93 out of Newark before 9/11?  I did.

Quote from: RPGPunditA civil war at that.

That his election helped trigger, by the way.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo its kind of a different situation.

No two situations are ever exactly the same.  But you keep changing the standards.  The complaint that Bush's actions are unwarranted based on the current situation is not the same as claiming that Bush has grabbed for more power than any other president.  If you want to complain, at least try to be precise in your complaints instead of sounding like a Steven Colbert or John Steward wannabe.  If you haven't noticed, they are both comedians, not serious commentators.

Quote from: CallousMy quote is based on my opinion of the observed events.

Through what lens have you observed those events are and you taking the bias of the lens into account when you make your assessment?  The reality is that few people are really as a good or as bad as their fans and detractors make them out to be or their public image reflects.

Quote from: walkerpThe attack on the USS Cole is not a terrorist attack.  It's a military attack on a military target.

So we were already at war at that point? Like Pearl Harbor?

I'll buy that. One more reason to rebuke Clinton for deriliction of duty.

Quote from: walkerpThe attack on the USS Cole is not a terrorist attack.  It's a military attack on a military target.

Real military attacks aren't done by people in civilian clothing waving to their enemy.  The whole blowing yourself up tends to look bad, too.

Quote from: walkerpThe attack on the USS Cole is not a terrorist attack.  It's a military attack on a military target.

I was going to laugh at you, but it looks like I'd have to stand in line.

Does status as a military target invalidate the 'terrorist' label? If so, where do you draw the line? Any Governmental targets? If that's the case you can casually write off the US Embassy bombings as well, not to mention at least one of the 9/11 planes.

The US was not at war with Yemen, had not invaded Afghanistan, and the USS Cole was not engaged in military manuevers in any meaningful sense of the term, unless you consider a General taking a shit to ALSO be a military maneuver.

Quote from: John MorrowThrough what lens have you observed those events are and you taking the bias of the lens into account when you make your assessment?  The reality is that few people are really as a good or as bad as their fans and detractors make them out to be or their public image reflects.

I'm saying we're all biased and everyone has an agenda in a political debate.  I am not being objective and neither are you or anyone else here.  That's sorta the point...  :)

Quote from: SpikeDoes status as a military target invalidate the 'terrorist' label? If so, where do you draw the line?

Civilian targets = terrorism

Military targets, irregular troops = guerilla warfare.

Who decides if we are in a war or not?  A military ship in a foreign harbour, especially one where it is not welcomed by a significant percentage of the population is a potential military target.  This is not the same as office workers in their own homeland.

The label "terrorist" has been used effectively by the current administration to allow them to ignore the Geneva convention and to justify their actions to the American public.  They put a 15-year old in Guantamo for the "murder" of a medic in Afghanistan. It was a firefight and the kid threw a grenade.  He is considered a terrorist by the American government right now.  That's just so weasely and munchkin-like, decidely un-American.  But that's the way we roll nowadays.  A damned shame.

Quote from: John MorrowHow many, exactly?

The link goes to our more right-leaning national paper (the other one is pretty far to the right as well).

Release raises doubts about terrorism case (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/canada/story.html?id=4eaa1f1f-2c7c-4c22-8e6f-c4e7ee111fc1)

"So far in the landmark case, which is regarded as a test of the state's ability to catch and prosecute terrorists, the charges against three of the youths have been stayed. Mr. Jamal was initially implicated in a plot to bomb buildings, but that charge was dropped in September. He remains charged with participating in a terrorist group and providing or receiving terrorist training."

Quote from: walkerpCivilian targets = terrorism

Military targets, irregular troops = guerilla warfare.

Who decides if we are in a war or not?  A military ship in a foreign harbour, especially one where it is not welcomed by a significant percentage of the population is a potential military target.  This is not the same as office workers in their own homeland.

The label "terrorist" has been used effectively by the current administration to allow them to ignore the Geneva convention and to justify their actions to the American public.  They put a 15-year old in Guantamo for the "murder" of a medic in Afghanistan. It was a firefight and the kid threw a grenade.  He is considered a terrorist by the American government right now.  That's just so weasely and munchkin-like, decidely un-American.  But that's the way we roll nowadays.  A damned shame.

You kill me.

Quote from: walkerpWe had all these exciting arrests in Canada of supposed terrorist plots.  A few years later, quietly and slowly they are either releasing the suspects or downgrading the charges.  Otherwise, it's been a bunch of innocent citizens of middle eastern descent locked up for no apparent reason other than being on someone's list or having a tourist guidebook in their car.

Quote from: walkerp"So far in the landmark case, which is regarded as a test of the state's ability to catch and prosecute terrorists, the charges against three of the youths have been stayed. Mr. Jamal was initially implicated in a plot to bomb buildings, but that charge was dropped in September. He remains charged with participating in a terrorist group and providing or receiving terrorist training."

Really, you do.

Quote from: walkerpThe label "terrorist" has been used effectively by the current administration to allow them to ignore the Geneva convention and to justify their actions to the American public.

Have you actually read the Geneva Conventions, particularly the section dealing with who is covered and who isn't?  I did, when people started to complain the US was violating it, to see if I thought we were or not.  I suggest you read it if you haven't and if you have, I'd like to know why you think it applies to "irregular troops" in question who do not, themselves, abide by it's provisions.

Quote from: walkerpThey put a 15-year old in Guantamo for the "murder" of a medic in Afghanistan.

You are, of course, aware that the Geneva Conventions that you think so highly of cover soldiers as young as 14, right?

Quote from: walkerpIt was a firefight and the kid threw a grenade.

Would he be better off if they had put a bullet in his brain?  After all, the Geneva Convention acknowledges that combatants can be as young as 14.

Quote from: walkerpHe is considered a terrorist by the American government right now.

What status would you prefer he have?  What country was he fighting for?  What uniform was he wearing?  Does his side of the conflict abide by the Geneva Conventions?

Quote from: walkerpThat's just so weasely and munchkin-like, decidely un-American.

Why?  Did you ever see what Americans did to kids his age in WW1 or the Civil War?  Have you ever read what the Americans did to the Japanese that they captured in various battles in the Pacific during WW2 or when what they did to the SS that ran the concentration camps that they liberated?  If an American soldier sent the skull of a dead Taliban home to his girlfriend, do you think they'd put a picture of it in Life Magazine the way they once published a photo of the trophy skull of a dead Japanese soldier(*)?  And remember, these are the guys people now call "The Greatest Generation".

"When he said goodby two years ago to Natalie Nickerson, 20 a war worker of Phoenix, Ariz., a big, handsome Navy lieutenant promised her a Jap. Last week Natalie received a human skull, autographed by her lieutenant and 13 friends, and inscribed: 'This is a good Jap - a dead one picked up on the New Guinea beach.' Natalie, surprised at the gift, named it Tojo. The armed forces disapprove strongly of this sort of thing."

(http://members.citynet.net/sootypaws/active/stories/images/life_picture_sm.jpg)

"Arizona war worker writes her Navy boy-friend a thank-you note for the Jap skull he sent her"

Life Magazine, 05/22/44, p.35

(Do you think CNN would have settled for strong disapproval at Abu Ghraib?)

I don't know what you think happened in the past, but you've apparently got a particularly Disneyfied perception of history.

(*) I was wrong about the picture being on the cover.  It wasn't on the cover but on page 35 of Life Magazine.

Quote from: walkerpThe link goes to our more right-leaning national paper (the other one is pretty far to the right as well).

I think you miss my point.  I accept that some people have been wrongly apprehended and held.  My question is, how many?  And how many innocent people get wrongly harassed by the authorities as part of normal non-terrorist law enforcement?  How many parents get their children taken away from them on false charges.  Law enforcement is imperfect.  And I do think they should exercise some care when it comes to arresting people.  But I'm seeing some sporadic cases, not an epidemic or systematic campaign of harassment and false arrests.

Quote from: John MorrowI think you miss my point.  I accept that some people have been wrongly apprehended and held.  My question is, how many?  And how many innocent people get wrongly harassed by the authorities as part of normal non-terrorist law enforcement?  How many parents get their children taken away from them on false charges.  Law enforcement is imperfect.  And I do think they should exercise some care when it comes to arresting people.  But I'm seeing some sporadic cases, not an epidemic or systematic campaign of harassment and false arrests.

That's because you're not of middle eastern descent.  I don't know the details, but we've got I think 4 guys held on security certificates here, all on the flimsiest evidence.  And then of course there's Mahar Arar.  We'll be seeing few more apologies and reparations for similar cases down the road, I'm quite sure.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't know what you think happened in the past, but you've apparently got a particularly Disneyfied perception of history.

The difference to me is between grisly or excessive behaviour on the battlefield or at least in the theatre of war by soldiers and organized institutionalized behaviour that goes against American principles of liberty.  The kid is a POW and should be treated as one.  Instead he is transported to the other side of the world, kept in a specially designed prison, isolated, tortured and interrogated.  That last one in particular cracks me up (in a grim way).  Do they honestly believe he has valuable information in the "War" on "Terror"?  What they are doing is creating a freedom fighter, whose every fibre will hate America until the day he dies.  Oh yes, and this is all on our tax dollars.

The court case that the US lost in June was an attempt to label him an "unlawful" enemy combatant.  It's this kind of moral hair-splitting and pettiness that suggests to me that the "War" on "Terror" is mostly bullshit and that the U.S. has lost its way.  They are more concerned with being right than actually preventing terror.  

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/04/khadr-charges.html

Quote from: walkerpThe difference to me is between grisly or excessive behaviour on the battlefield or at least in the theatre of war by soldiers and organized institutionalized behaviour that goes against American principles of liberty.  The kid is a POW and should be treated as one.  Instead he is transported to the other side of the world, kept in a specially designed prison, isolated, tortured and interrogated.  That last one in particular cracks me up (in a grim way).  Do they honestly believe he has valuable information in the "War" on "Terror"?  What they are doing is creating a freedom fighter, whose every fibre will hate America until the day he dies.  Oh yes, and this is all on our tax dollars.

Would you stop using "our" when describing American actions. Complain out Canada, then say "our."  But, see, you knew that going in - otherwise you're,. what, complaining about my tax dollars?  Yeah, that sounds a little flat, doesn't it.

Quote from: walkerpThe court case that the US lost in June was an attempt to label him an "unlawful" enemy combatant.  It's this kind of moral hair-splitting and pettiness that suggests to me that the "War" on "Terror" is mostly bullshit and that the U.S. has lost its way.  They are more concerned with being right than actually preventing terror.

Ahhh..there's the "they." Thanks.  

It's not moral hair splitting.  It's trying to find out how to handle situations not previously proscribed in the Geneva conventions. WTF do you do with a kid not in uniform throwing grenades at your forces? IIRC, in WW2, they were pretty much summarily executed (read: shot on the battlefield) as they were considered not covered by the Geneva conventions.

Would that assuage your moral hair splitting conscience?

Nitwit.

Quote from: walkerpThat's because you're not of middle eastern descent.

Please spare me the "you don't know what it's like" argument.  I've been an American in Japan.  I've been subjected to special police attention for being with black friends.  I had my car searched searched by police convinced that a black college student in a car with some white college students must be a drug deal going down.  My point, again, is that the same thing, and worse, happens as a part of normal law enforcement, too.  Do we stop hiring police or enforcing crimes because mistakes are made and police sometimes act like jackbooted thugs?

Quote from: walkerpI don't know the details, but we've got I think 4 guys held on security certificates here, all on the flimsiest evidence.

Are you sure you know all of the evidence?

Quote from: walkerpAnd then of course there's Mahar Arar.

Why don't you fault the country that actually, you know, tortured him?

Quote from: walkerpWe'll be seeing few more apologies and reparations for similar cases down the road, I'm quite sure.

Sure.  And there are some innocent people thrown in prison for long sentences, too.  Some eventually get released but I'm sure that others don't.  The justice system isn't perfect.  That it's imperfect does not mean that we should abolish it.  That a handful of innocent Muslims are unfairly persecuted is awful and attempts should certainly be made to learn from those mistakes and minimize them as much as possible.  But past mistakes and the fear of making mistakes should not be an excuse to do nothing.

I'd be more convinced by the outrage over injustice if a little more was directed at the terrorists that actually murder hundreds of innocent people and create this paranoia in the first place.  That the outrage seems rather selective, hence Michael Walzer's post-9/11 article, Can There Be a Decent Left? (http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=598)

Quote from: James J SkachWould you stop using "our" when describing American actions. Complain out Canada, then say "our."  But, see, you knew that going in - otherwise you're,. what, complaining about my tax dollars?  Yeah, that sounds a little flat, doesn't it.

Excuse me, I'm a dual citizen.  Spent over 20 years living on American soil and was once quite proud to be American.  Americans used to have balls.

Quote from: James J SkachNitwit.

So I guess your brief period of arguing in a civilized manner is over.  Why do you think this kind of language helps your argument?

Quote from: John MorrowPlease spare me the "you don't know what it's like" argument.  I've been an American in Japan.  I've been subjected to special police attention for being with black friends.  I had my car searched searched by police convinced that a black college student in a car with some white college students must be a drug deal going down.  My point, again, is that the same thing, and worse, happens as a part of normal law enforcement, too.  Do we stop hiring police or enforcing crimes because mistakes are made and police sometimes act like jackbooted thugs?

I wasn't using the "you don't know what it's like" argument.  I was simply stating that the widespread persecution and witch hunts are directed towards a specific population and you (and I) are not part of that population.  I'm sure you can imagine what it is like.  But you can't necessarily see it.  I met an Indian guy, a Canadian citizen, who left a really plum job in the states because he had such a hard time going back and forth across the border to visit his family.  I have an Iranian aquaintance, a succesful businessman who basically adds two hours to all his flights because he always gets searched and fingerprinted.  But he flies so regularily that it's become a kind of joke to the customs guys.  I know this is all anecdotal, but I think it is real for people of middle eastern descent.

Yes, there are going to be mistakes, but the question is where do you draw the line?  To me, what makes America great is it's strong belief in individual liberty.  I don't believe that security trumps liberty.  Actually, I believe you can have both in a well run state (imagine if we had a good intelligence service, for instance).  But if I have to choose, I'll choose liberty.  But that might be easier for me as I have no children.  Bush and his cronies have wisely used fear to their advantage and there is now less freedom and less security in America.

Quote from: walkerpExcuse me, I'm a dual citizen.  Spent over 20 years living on American soil and was once quite proud to be American.  Americans used to have balls.

Yeah, back when we didn't worry about all this shit and just put a bullet in their head.

But, see if you're not paying taxes now (which I doubt, though feel free to disprove me), than don't say it's "your" tax dollars.

Quote from: walkerpSo I guess your brief period of arguing in a civilized manner is over.  Why do you think this kind of language helps your argument?

With you?  You've said you hate me.  Why would I bother?  I have balls, ya know?

Revenge!

Quote from: walkerpThe difference to me is between grisly or excessive behaviour on the battlefield or at least in the theatre of war by soldiers and organized institutionalized behaviour that goes against American principles of liberty.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/61/Mess_Hall_Line.jpg/800px-Mess_Hall_Line.jpg)

Quote from: walkerpThe kid is a POW and should be treated as one.

Did you read the Geneva Conventions?  On what basis does he qualify as a POW?

Quote from: walkerpInstead he is transported to the other side of the world, kept in a specially designed prison, isolated, tortured and interrogated.

How was he tortured?  You are aware that the American military inflicts waterboarding on its own soldiers who go through training to learn how to resist interrogation, right?  Do you think the American military tortures its own soldiers, too?

Quote from: walkerpThat last one in particular cracks me up (in a grim way).  Do they honestly believe he has valuable information in the "War" on "Terror"?

Apparently they believe he knows something that they need to know.  If they don't, then why do you think they are holding him?  And what makes you think you've got a better understanding of this guy and what he might or might not know than the people who captured him and have interrogated him?

Quote from: walkerpWhat they are doing is creating a freedom fighter, whose every fibre will hate America until the day he dies.

Uh, didn't you just say he was captures for throwing a grenade and killing a medic in Afghanistan (by the way, targeting medics with a red cross on them is in violation of the Geneva Conventions that you think so highly of)?  Wasn't he fighting for the Taliban or Al Qaeda?  I think the odds are pretty good that he already hated America with ever fibre so I'd put this down as a zero net change in attitude.

Quote from: walkerpOh yes, and this is all on our tax dollars.

I've worked for my state's government.  My tax dollars are wasted on far more useless things than that.

Quote from: walkerpThe court case that the US lost in June was an attempt to label him an "unlawful" enemy combatant.

He was violating the Geneva Convention by targeting a medic.  And I'm still waiting for you to read the provisions that define who is covered and tell me why he conforms to the standards of who is covered.  That's right.  The Geneva Convention doesn't cover everyone.  Only lawful enemy combatants, hence the distinction.  It's a very real one when you want to snicker at it or not.

Quote from: walkerpIt's this kind of moral hair-splitting and pettiness that suggests to me that the "War" on "Terror" is mostly bullshit and that the U.S. has lost its way.

It's not moral hair-splitting and it's a pettiness that you didn't see before Vietnam because in times of war, the press would largely shut up and keep secrets to support their side of the war instead of imagining themselves as objective citizens of the world obliged to help their own country lose.  I've repeatedly pointed out that Americans did FAR WORSE to their enemies in just about any war you care to point to before this one, including ones that people generally cheer as good wars.  War is messy.  Always.

Quote from: walkerpThey are more concerned with being right than actually preventing terror.

Can you please tell me why I'm supposed to feel sympathy for a guy who killed an American medic whose court strategy seems to rest on technicalities?  Have you read the accounts of his capture? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr)  What do you want the US to do?  Give him a lollipop and send him home with a pat on the back?

I can't understand why people waste their time apologizing for George W.  It's that weird "support our team" mindset that's carried over from sports.

If I vote for someone, and they suck (and make no mistake, George W has done a sucktastic job) then I'm not going to defend them, or my decision to vote for them... I'm going to be first in line saying "Yeah, I voted for this dumbass, and what the shit is this?!  Smarten up, and do your god damn job, idiot."

If you hire someone to cut your hair and they screw it up so that you go home looking like a mental patient... you're not going to be defending them.  If the mailman smashes your parcels by cramming them through the mail slot, you're not going to tell everyone how much better than the last mailman is, are you?  So why would you spend your time defending politicians?  They get the big bucks, live in the fancy houses, and get the PR staff.  They can deal with people voicing their frustration about how well they're doing their job.

Don't mistake being unhappy with a current government as an endorsement for the other party either.  You can (and should!) be able to say you're unhappy with your government without worrying that you're not "supporting your team".  The Republican and Democrat parties are both terrible and they've only gotten worse in recent years.  Maybe it's a North American thing, because the parties in Canada suck too.  The thing about them all being bad is that if any of them got their acts together they'd get my vote, and probably a lot of people who are fed up like me.  I'm not going to hold my breath though.

Quote from: walkerpExcuse me, I'm a dual citizen.  Spent over 20 years living on American soil and was once quite proud to be American.  Americans used to have balls.

Yes.  They used to kill the bad guys without feeling sorry for it and cheer for their own side to win.  I don't think that the America you remember ever existed so it's not surprising that the real America doesn't live up to your idealistic fantasy.

As for dual citizenship, I think you should have to give up your citizenship in one country to become the citizen of another.

I'm just curious, Stuart. Does not agreeing with people who make this claim or spout that hyperbole is equivalent to supporting Bush just because the person voted for him?

That's not like you to make such a lazy argument - s'why I ask.

Quote from: James J SkachDoes not agreeing with people who make this claim or spout that hyperbole is equivalent to supporting Bush just because the person voted for him?

One of us is tired.  I'm not sure what you're saying... :)

I saw your tag, so I just wanted to make sure you weren't taking this discussion airing out walkerp's dual-citizen-but-no-longer-proud-to-be-american issues with American policy (and others) as a blanket support of Bush simply on the basis of voting for him.

It is possible to have voted for Bush, not agree with him on several issues, even go so far as to believe there were some major fuck-ups after the fall of Baghdad, and still not think it's all "The sky is falling!"

And I wanted to make sure you were not under the impression that those people defending certain policy decisions were not doing it simply as a result of the phenomenon you described.

Yeah - I'm tired too.  Damn scanner.....

Quote from: walkerpI wasn't using the "you don't know what it's like" argument.

Yeah, you were.

Quote from: walkerpI was simply stating that the widespread persecution and witch hunts are directed towards a specific population and you (and I) are not part of that population.

You've named maybe a half-dozen people so far.  That qualifies as "widespread persecution and witch hunts"?  If that's your threshold, I think it's a bit low.

Quote from: walkerpI'm sure you can imagine what it is like.  But you can't necessarily see it.

So it's a widespread but hidden persecution and a witch hunt that I can't see?

Quote from: walkerpI met an Indian guy, a Canadian citizen, who left a really plum job in the states because he had such a hard time going back and forth across the border to visit his family.

What kind of visa did he have?  I worked with a guy from India who backed up across the bridge to Canada at Niagra Falls that he accidentally turned on to rather than cross into Canada and have to worry about getting back.  He didn't seem to feel particularly bitter about it.

I had to get re-entry visas to get back into Japan when I left to visit other countries, too.  Does that mean I was persecuted?  I think you are simply spoiled by the formerly casual handling of travel between the US and Canada.

Quote from: walkerpI have an Iranian aquaintance, a succesful businessman who basically adds two hours to all his flights because he always gets searched and fingerprinted.

I'll have to ask my Iranian friends if they have similar experiences.

Quote from: walkerpBut he flies so regularily that it's become a kind of joke to the customs guys.  I know this is all anecdotal, but I think it is real for people of middle eastern descent.

Do they tell him why he is singled out, in particular?  Is he still an Iranian national?

Quote from: walkerpYes, there are going to be mistakes, but the question is where do you draw the line?  To me, what makes America great is it's strong belief in individual liberty.  I don't believe that security trumps liberty.

Civilization and the rule of law, itself, is security trumping liberty.  That we live under a government, obey laws, and are subject to the powers of appointed law enforcement officials is security trumping liberty.  I know that doesn't make for a good bumper sticker slogan but that's the way it is.

Quote from: walkerpActually, I believe you can have both in a well run state (imagine if we had a good intelligence service, for instance).

How do you gather good intelligence when intelligence can be evaded through legal protections against it?

Quote from: walkerpBut if I have to choose, I'll choose liberty.

Really?  Would you really enjoy living in some lawless corner of the world without police or laws?

Quote from: walkerpBut that might be easier for me as I have no children.

Do you plan on having any?

Quote from: walkerpBush and his cronies have wisely used fear to their advantage and there is now less freedom and less security in America.

So you keep claiming.

Quote from: James J SkachSays a Canadian with simplistic ideological criticisms.

Care to point out where my criticisms were simplistic and ideological? I pointed out that civil strife and violent extremism were very real possibilities during the Depression, and FDR tried to stave off a full-scale turmoil and a rupturing of American democracy by a program of massive public works.

What is it about that observation that you find fault with? Do you disagree that America could have gone the way of much of Europe and turned to either communism or fascism?

I wasn't replying to the discussion with Walkerp... it was more general commentary on the original topic.

QuoteIt is possible to have voted for Bush, not agree with him on several issues, even go so far as to believe there were some major fuck-ups after the fall of Baghdad, and still not think it's all "The sky is falling!"

If I was an American, I'd want to kick the Republican party's ass so that they picked someone halfway decent to put on the ballot for the next election.  If I was planning on voting Republican, I'd be *more* pissed than if I was going to vote Democrat.

Although I'd be pretty pissed if I was going to vote Democrat too -- pretty awful, really.  I can't believe they're thinking of running Hillary.  What a joke.

I think a classic conservative republican looks like your best option... too bad you're unlikely to get one.  A (very) moderate / conservative on the democrat side might work... but they're so screwed up, I'd really be surprised.

There's  lots of awesome stuff going on in America, and lots of people OUTSIDE government are doing great things.  So no, the sky isn't falling... but man, I can't believe you guys are putting up with such crappy governments.

Quote from: StuartI can't understand why people waste their time apologizing for George W.  It's that weird "support our team" mindset that's carried over from sports.

I don't think anyone, myself included, was willing to stand up and say that they actually like President Bush, the original topic of this thread.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't think anyone, myself included, was willing to stand up and say that they actually like President Bush, the original topic of this thread.

That speaks well for everyone here then. :)

I've definitely seen that kind of thing elsewhere though.  And apologists for similar crap here in Canada.  I can't say about elsewhere in the world... maybe it's a North American thing.

Quote from: HaffrungCare to point out where my criticisms were simplistic and ideological? I pointed out that civil strife and violent extremism were very real possibilities during the Depression, and FDR tried to stave off a full-scale turmoil and a rupturing of American democracy by a program of massive public works.

What is it about that observation that you find fault with? Do you disagree that America could have gone the way of much of Europe and turned to either communism or fascism?

Quote from: HaffrungNobody knew how things would turn, but FDR knew he couldn't just sitting back and wait to see what those millions of desperate sharecroppers, out of work machinists, impoverished hillbillies, and homeless veterans would do. So he came up with the New Deal as a way to get people back to work, mitigate the worst of the misery swirling around the country, and innoculate the USA from extremism.

Fortunately, history has recognized that FDR made a wise decision. It's only now that the Depression is passing from living memory that neo-cons are coming out of the woodwork to disparage FDR with their simplistic ideological criticisms.

See the second part, there? The point is that history is now rethinking his wisdom. But if you're ideological there's no need - his decision provides your ideal - government as the solution to the problem. To even question is makes you a "neo-con" "coming out of the woodwork."

See how simple and ideological it all gets?

Quote from: John MorrowYes, CNN's token conservatives.  Can you name a third?

I dunno, I only flip past CNN during primetime - when those two 'token' conservatives are on every night.

Seriously, if the bombastic, drum-beating demogoguery of CNN is what passes for an elitist lefty news network in the U.S., then it's pretty clear that the U.S. has very little in common with the rest of the developed world anymore.

Quote from: Stuartf I was an American, I'd want to kick the Republican party's ass so that they picked someone halfway decent to put on the ballot for the next election.  If I was planning on voting Republican, I'd be *more* pissed than if I was going to vote Democrat.

Well, the fact that candidates are run through a meat-grinder by the press all but guarantees that both parties will have a slate full of big egos and narcissism.  Of course it would also help if more people would vote in primaries rather than fancying themselves as independents.

Quote from: StuartThere's  lots of awesome stuff going on in America, and lots of people OUTSIDE government are doing great things.  So no, the sky isn't falling... but man, I can't believe you guys are putting up with such crappy governments.

Things are basically OK for most Americans, so they are pretty apathetic about who runs things.  It's the flip side of Haffrung's analysis of FDR.

Quote from: HaffrungI dunno, I only flip past CNN during primetime - when those two 'token' conservatives are on every night.

On Headline News, yes.  They are an attempt to improve ratings, since Fox is blowing their doors off.  Try watching the full-blown CNN.  Or maybe watch MSNBC, which is apparently now trying to become the left-wing Fox (and has seemed that way for a while now).

Quote from: John MorrowWell, the fact that candidates are run through a meat-grinder by the press all but guarantees that both parties will have a slate full of big egos and narcissism.  Of course it would also help if more people would vote in primaries rather than fancying themselves as independents.

Or better yet, took more active roles in local affairs.  Where do national candidates come from but local parties, right? So don't ignore off-year congressional, vote in state elections, that's a start. Hell, ever just watch your local town/village/city council on tv?  It's amazing.

Quote from: John Morrowthey are pretty apathetic about who runs things.

That's Canada too. We flip back and forth from Liberal (Democrat) to Conservative (Repulican)* each time one of them screws up and people vote them out.  I think people are most pleased with government when it's a minority, and they can't get away with much.  It's when they get a majority and think they're above the law that it gets really stupid.

* We have some other parties, but they don't really want to be in charge.

Quote from: James J SkachHell, ever just watch your local town/village/city council on tv?  It's amazing.

My town is "machine Democrat".  I don't think I could stomach that.

Quote from: John MorrowMy town is "machine Democrat".  I don't think I could stomach that.

I couldn't even tell you what these peoples' politics are - that's the joy of small town/suburban I suppose.  It's all "I don't like that architecture for the new mall" and so forth.

But every once in a while, you get a gem.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not buying it.  Historically, the purpose of terrorism has been to get concessions, surrender, or to simply inflict revenge (which is why they tend to make demands -- see Spain after the train bombs and Australia after the Bali bombs).  

You are aware, I hope, that the Spanish government was already unpopular before the Madrid attacks. And its efforts to pin the blame on the Basques in order to drum up domestic support only made them even less popular. The Spanish didn't cave into terrorism - they simply exercised their democratic will to kick out an unpopular government that lied to them.

QuoteIf the terrorists really do believe that an "intemperate reaction", alone, is a good thing, then they are even bigger idiots than I think they are.

Well, they are suicidal religious fanatics, so you have to take that into account.

QuoteIt doesn't do them any good if their community is destroyed and lots of them are killed.  That's where this is going.

Every time infidels kill 20 muslims on muslim soil, they make 30 more radicals. As many in the American military and intelligence communities have pointed out, it's a regenerating movement which can only be rolled back through political means.

I mean, there are well over a billion muslims in the world. Unless you're advocating a sustained program of mass biological warfare, or devastating a third of the globe with nuclear attacks, then killing any more than a tiny fraction of them is not a realistic strategy.

QuoteTo what end?

To turn every muslim country into a Islamic state.

Islam, and in particular the Arab world, is in a state of fierce internal crisis. Even the modest steps towards modernization that the Arab states have made in the last 60 years have infuriated religous conservatives. As the muslim world continues to flounder with dreary economic conditions and corrupt governments, radicalism has grown. The primary goal of these Islamicists movements is to overthrow the corrupt Westernized goverments of the region - Egypt and Saudi Arabia especially - and replace them with true Islamic states.

However, those regimes have proven too firmly entrenched to oust. Mubarak has cracked down brutally on Islamicist movements, and the Sauds pay off and divert their homegrown radicals.

Fortunately (from their point of view), the Islamicists have Israel and its patron America as a rallying cry for their cause. They want to leverage the hatred of Israel and America in the Arab street into support for their fundamentalist revolution in the muslim world.

But as much as your typical Arab working at a taxi stand in Cairo hates Israel and the U.S., he doesn't necessarily want to see his country become a medieval theocracy. He needs a bit of prodding, a bit of the old 'it's us or them' to turn him from a guy who shakes his fist at the television when Israel lobs bombs into Lebanon into a guy who can be trusted to drive Islamicist leaders to secret meetings. And he gets that prodding every time al-Jazeera shows the mangled carcasses of Arab children dragged out of the rubble in the wake of an American air bombing or an Israeli artillery strike.

Just as the attacks on Sept. 11 made Americans furious and hardened their resolve against Islamic terrorism, so the occupation of a muslim country by infidels who slay with impunity makes muslims furious and hardens their resolve against Israeli-American imperalism. The jihadists would like nothing better than to see every muslim nation whipped into war and strife, because strife radicalizes.

Just look at Tito in Yugoslavia during WWII: his purposeful strategy was to provoke reprisals by the Germans in every corner of the country, because he knew that although most Yugoslavs just wanted to be left alone, he had the most to gain by making every village choose a side. So he would launch an attack on a German supply dump, the Germans would round up the local villagers and shoot a couple dozen of them, and then the town would produce new recruits to get revenge on the Germans. He was quite effective - in Yugoslavia more citizens per capita were killed in WWII than any other country. And Tito was the master of the country in the end.

Quote from: James J SkachI have balls, ya know?

Yes, great big internet balls.

Quote from: James J SkachSee the second part, there? The point is that history is now rethinking his wisdom. But if you're ideological there's no need - his decision provides your ideal - government as the solution to the problem. To even question is makes you a "neo-con" "coming out of the woodwork."

See how simple and ideological it all gets?

But I don't believe government is the solution to every problem. In fact, I'm pretty fiscally conservative by Canadian standards. I'm not ideological on the matter of government works one way or another. Sometimes it's effective, sometimes it isn't. I believe the New Deal is one case where it was effective, and where the consequences of inaction were dire enough that its excesses are forgivable.

I'm a utilitarian pragmatist - the only measure of a policies worth is its results, and different situations call for different policies.

However, it seems as though you are an ideologue when it comes to the role of government - you think it's always bad. Just because I disagree with your views doesn't make me an ideologue for the other team.

But I'll ask again - do you have any concrete, specific criticisms of FDR and the New Deal - besides a simple ideological opposition to public works?

John Morrow, you make some good points (though you also sidetrack a lot of stuff as well and make up your own arguments that I'm not even having) but I really can't follow your point by point response style.  I can't follow it as a passive reader and I definitely can't follow it as someone debating with you.  I mean where does it end?  Where we each quote the previous word of the other person?

I prefer a single post response, with an overarching argument that touches on the many points within.  I just can't do the point by point quoting.  Sorry.

Quote from: HaffrungYou are aware, I hope, that the Spanish government was already unpopular before the Madrid attacks. And its efforts to pin the blame on the Basques in order to drum up domestic support only made them even less popular. The Spanish didn't cave into terrorism - they simply exercised their democratic will to kick out an unpopular government that lied to them.

Sure.  But you are also aware that withdrawal from Iraq was the demand that the terrorists made to the Spanish government, right?  Regardless of whether they actually caused the behavior or not, based on the demands that they've been making, that's their stated goal.

Quote from: HaffrungWell, they are suicidal religious fanatics, so you have to take that into account.

Yes, but even suicidal religious fanatics want to actually win.

Quote from: HaffrungEvery time infidels kill 20 muslims on muslim soil, they make 30 more radicals. As many in the American military and intelligence communities have pointed out, it's a regenerating movement which can only be rolled back through political means.

I'm not sure it neatly adds up that way and the Muslims killing other Muslims on Muslim soil complicates the calculus more than a little.  That's why, despite the mistakes, you have Muslims working with Americans in both Iraq and Afghanistan, too.

Quote from: HaffrungI mean, there are well over a billion muslims in the world. Unless you're advocating a sustained program of mass biological warfare, or devastating a third of the globe with nuclear attacks, then killing any more than a tiny fraction of them is not a realistic strategy.

That assumes that all Muslims can and will be radicalized. I don't think that all Muslims are interchangeable and react the same way.

Quote from: HaffrungTo turn every muslim country into a Islamic state.

I think their goal is a bit larger than that.

Quote from: HaffrungIslam, and in particular the Arab world, is in a state of fierce internal crisis. Even the modest steps towards modernization that the Arab states have made in the last 60 years have infuriated religous conservatives. As the muslim world continues to flounder with dreary economic conditions and corrupt governments, radicalism has grown. The primary goal of these Islamicists movements is to overthrow the corrupt Westernized goverments of the region - Egypt and Saudi Arabia especially - and replace them with true Islamic states.

I think that analysis ignores the money being pumped into the more radical sects from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere and the fact that many of the most radical terrorists are being drawn from the middle and upper classes (like bin Laden) rather than from among the poor.  And looking at things ranging from how Lebanon went from being the Riviera of the Middle East to a terrorist Hell-hole and to current Iranian displeasure over their corrupt religious government suggests a far more complex set of causes and effects than you seem to be considering.

Quote from: HaffrungHowever, those regimes have proven too firmly entrenched to oust. Mubarak has cracked down brutally on Islamicist movements, and the Sauds pay off and divert their homegrown radicals.

The Saudi pay-offs, among other things (including the deal that they cut after the 1979 battle in Mecca), is part of what's fueling the problems elsewhere.  Their "diversion" is becoming a problem for everyone else.

Quote from: HaffrungFortunately (from their point of view), the Islamicists have Israel and its patron America as a rallying cry for their cause. They want to leverage the hatred of Israel and America in the Arab street into support for their fundamentalist revolution in the muslim world.

Given the lies that they openly tell about Americans and Jews, it doesn't really matter what America or Isreal actually does, does it?  If they can convince other Muslims that Jews steal the eyes of Muslim children and carried out 9/11 (even after Al Qaeda claimed responsibility and Muslims cheered him for it), wouldn't they find something else to complain about even if the US and Israel utterly vacated the Middle East?  And given that Israel isn't going to vacate the Middle East and has an arsenal of at least 200 nuclear weapons, I don't expect this to end well.

Quote from: HaffrungBut I don't believe government is the solution to every problem. In fact, I'm pretty fiscally conservative by Canadian standards. I'm not ideological on the matter of government works one way or another. Sometimes it's effective, sometimes it isn't. I believe the New Deal is one case where it was effective, and where the consequences of inaction were dire enough that its excesses are forgivable.

I'm a utilitarian pragmatist - the only measure of a policies worth is its results, and different situations call for different policies.

However, it seems as though you are an ideologue when it comes to the role of government - you think it's always bad. Just because I disagree with your views doesn't make me an ideologue for the other team.

But I'll ask again - do you have any concrete, specific criticisms of FDR and the New Deal - besides a simple ideological opposition to public works?

See that, right there, in the bold? That's ideology. You don't see it - it makes all the sense in the world to you. But for those who don't share your "utilitarian pragmatist" ideology, it's clear you are only taking into account the effects you find fit your goal. I will say that at least you admit to the excesses, which is more than most.

But you don't seem to take into account the subsequent effect on the balance of power between the States and the Federal Government. Or the instantiation of a concept not yet seen in the US system - dependence on the government for a job. Or how about...well, here - a quick selection from Reason Magazine October 2004 - "Bad Deal" (it's a book review on people reassessing the New Deal):

QuoteUltimately, Powell's case is both more convincing and damning. His evidence reveals that the New Deal threw African Americans out of work, raised the price of food during the depths of the Depression, and granted monopoly bargaining powers to racist unions. In short, Powell writes, "Black people were among the major victims of the New Deal." Such a conclusion doesn't merely reveal FDR's often indifferent attitude toward minorities -- in passing wartime travel restrictions and internment rules on Italian Americans, for instance, he derided them as "a bunch of opera singers" -- it suggests that a thorough, fact-based re-evaluation of FDR's mythic status as a champion of the underdog is long overdue.

I wonder if the reviewer is a neo-con crawling out of the woodwork. I should probably research that. Eh, it's all simplistic ideology anyway.

Quote from: walkerpJohn Morrow, you make some good points (though you also sidetrack a lot of stuff as well and make up your own arguments that I'm not even having) but I really can't follow your point by point response style.  I can't follow it as a passive reader and I definitely can't follow it as someone debating with you.  I mean where does it end?  Where we each quote the previous word of the other person?

I've never understood why it's hard to follow, personally.  Maybe it's all those years I spent on the Usenet, where such replies were the norm.

Quote from: walkerpI prefer a single post response, with an overarching argument that touches on the many points within.  I just can't do the point by point quoting.  Sorry.

The gist of my response it this:

You've named no more than a dozen examples of what you consider unfair and unjust treatment and then call it "widespread persecution and witch hunts"?  I think that's hyperbole.

You suggest that I can't see the full scope of the problem and give a few more anecdotal examples that lack enough detail to be useful (e.g., the citizenship of the people involved) and assume that I don't have friends that are Muslim or Indian or talk to co-workers from other countries (which isn't true).  I've also had to deal with the hassle of dealing with visas when I lived in Japan.  Travel between many countries is not as easy as travel between the US and Canada.  ADDED:  In fact, my bags were thoroughly screened in Tokyo, to the point of questioning bottles of water I had in my carry on bag, even before 9/11.

You claimed that you don't believe that security trumps liberty and I pointed out that civilization and rule by government, itself, is security trumping liberty.  You can't avoid it, nor do most reasonable people want to.  And I'll add that it's easy to downplay the importance of security when one feels secure.

Basically, if you want me to keep my replies focused, try keeping your argument more focused.  You drifted off onto other less important topics and claims than I summarized above, which is the reason why I diced your response into such small pieces.

Quote from: HaffrungI believe the New Deal is one case where it was effective, and where the consequences of inaction were dire enough that its excesses are forgivable.

And there are people who will tell you that the excesses of the Bush Administration are forgivable because the consequences of inaction are also dire enough.  That's how excesses are always justified.

Quote from: HaffrungI'm a utilitarian pragmatist - the only measure of a policies worth is its results, and different situations call for different policies.

The problem is that we never get to see how the path untaken would have worked out.  That means that one person can imagine that if FDR hadn't done what he'd done, the US could have fallen into Communism or Fascism and another person can imagine things turning out just fine without the excesses, and we'll never know who is right.  Would the economy have recovered during the Bush Presidency if he hadn't cut taxes?  Would the Soviet Union have collapsed anyway if Ronald Reagan hadn't built up the US military?  Would Bill Clinton's years of economic prosperity have happened regardless of who was President?  Would Richard Nixon have handled Cuba and the Cuban Missile Crisis as well as or better than Kennedy?  One can play these games all day.

Quote from: John MorrowI think their goal is a bit larger than that.

What is the goal of radical Islam, then?

Quote from: HaffrungWhat is the goal of radical Islam, then?

Well, you said that they want:

Quote from: HaffrungTo turn every muslim country into a Islamic state.

Beyond that, some would like to see a restoration of a single caliphate and I think they'd all like to see every country, not simply every Muslim country, turned into an Islamic state (which is why quite a few Muslims, when polled, say that they'd like to see Sharia instituted in places like the UK, Canada, etc.).  Remember that even getting all formerly Muslim lands back under their control includes parts of India and Spain.  I don't think that all Muslims are anxious for this (quite a few, when polled, say that they don't want sharia instituted in places like the UK) but the radicals sure seem to be.

Quote from: John MorrowBeyond that, some would like to see a restoration of a single caliphate and I think they'd all like to see every country, not simply every Muslim country, turned into an Islamic state (which is why quite a few Muslims, when polled, say that they'd like to see Sharia instituted in places like the UK, Canada, etc.).  Remember that even getting all formerly Muslim lands back under their control includes parts of India and Spain.  I don't think that all Muslims are anxious for this (quite a few, when polled, say that they don't want sharia instituted in places like the UK) but the radicals sure seem to be.

And how practical do you think these ambitions - held by a small minority of muslims - are? I mean, they can't even take over the largest Arab country. Arabs and muslims are hopelessly fractious where they do hold power. Just look at the Palestinians.

The notion of a restored Caliphate governing Spain is science fiction. The only people who take such ideas seriously are the Clash of Civilizations zealots who see every threat to the U.S. as a manichean struggle for global supremacy.

Quote from: HaffrungAnd how practical do you think these ambitions - held by a small minority of muslims - are? I mean, they can't even take over the largest Arab country. Arabs and muslims are hopelessly fractious where they do hold power. Just look at the Palestinians.

I think that some of their strategies are more practical than others.  For example, making sure that Muslim immigrants in Europe are isolated from the larger culture, radicalized by extremist mosques, and have a lot of kids could, based on current demographic trends, could make at least some European countries either substantially or predominantly Muslim countries in less than 100 years.  And if you buy the argument that being poor and downtrodden radicalizes people and makes them hungry for payback, the way Muslim immigrants are currently being treated in many European countries (e.g., consider the term "third generation immigrant"), that cultural transition may not be peaceful or pleasant for those involved.

Quote from: HaffrungThe notion of a restored Caliphate governing Spain is science fiction. The only people who take such ideas seriously are the Clash of Civilizations zealots who see every threat to the U.S. as a manichean struggle for global supremacy.

I agree that the restored Caliphate is going to be a problem because of Muslim factions, but current population trends suggest cultural shifts ahead in Europe.  Most Europeans are not having many children, if any (quite a few European countries have birth rates in the 1.3 range and even the exceptions in Scandinavia are below replacement) just as progressives are not having children in the United States.  It's not all that uncommon to find people on right-wing message boards with 5 kids or even 8 kids and Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and other conservative (American sense) groups are also having big families.  Kids are the future and you can't seize the future without them.

Quote from: John MorrowI think that some of their strategies are more practical than others.  For example, making sure that Muslim immigrants in Europe are isolated from the larger culture, radicalized by extremist mosques, and have a lot of kids could, based on current demographic trends, could make at least some European countries either substantially or predominantly Muslim countries in less than 100 years.

That's a mighty contentious claim you're making there. Can we see some actual numbers?

Quote from: WarthurThat's a mighty contentious claim you're making there. Can we see some actual numbers?

You think thats contentious?!  Don't you remember France having all those muslim ghetto's rioting about... ah... two years ago? I seem to recall someone commenting that there are now more muslim immigrants in france now then French people.

See the same thing with anti-immigration debate in Germany in the news... its all over the place.

If I didn't trust John to come up with the numbers for you, I'd find them myself. But I'm lazy. ;)

Yeah...I suppose I could track them down, but Warthur, this has been in the news for at least a year or more.  It's essentially an old story now. There's been a lot of talk of this since more attacks and plans seemed to be pointing at Europe and the folks there started to struggle with the question - "Wait.  We didn't invade Iraq.  How come they want to attack us?"

Oh yeah - Spike's right -the rioting in France too....

Quote from: SpikeYou think thats contentious?!  Don't you remember France having all those muslim ghetto's rioting about... ah... two years ago?

Saying unassimilated muslims are causing civil strife in Europe is one thing; saying they will make up a majority of the population in some countries within a hundred years is another matter entirely.

The thing about demographic patterns is that they're fluid. The nativist Know-Nothings in 19th century American could point to trends showing that the U.S. would be 100 per cent Italian with a hundred years. Didn't happen, though at the time most Americans of anglo descent believed that assimilation by Italians was near impossible, what with their illiteracy, popery, lack of democratic traditions, huge families, etc.

The birth rate of native Europeans has stabilized and is even on the rise in most of Northern Europe, including the UK and France. It's unlikely that muslim birth rates will continue to stay at their current rate for another two or three generations - education of women eventually brings down the birth rate in every society, no matter how religious. And European countries like the Netherlands are now taking steps to ensure muslim immigrants and their sons cannot import illiterate wives from their native lands.

The difficulty assimilating muslims into European society is a serious problem. But it's not the apocalyptic struggle for survival that the many on the right want to believe.

QuoteI seem to recall someone commenting that there are now more muslim immigrants in france now then French people.

Absolute bullshit, that only shows how clueless (or malicious) many American commentators are about Europe. Muslims make up 5-10 per cent (depending on who you ask) of the population of France. And of people who identify themselves as of muslim heritage, 36% self-describe themselves as "observant believers", and only 20% claim to regularly go to the mosque on Fridays. [source: Islam in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France)]

Quote from: WarthurThat's a mighty contentious claim you're making there. Can we see some actual numbers?

Will you accept the Brookings Institution as a valid source?

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2003/03middleeast_taspinar.aspx

"Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent."

Here is Mark Steyn's more partisan and alarmist analysis:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

I invite you to do your own research on European demographics and make up your own mind.  Steyn certainly has his critics and there is certainly a lot of bald racism on the demographics alarmism side so you should read both sides of this issue.  But I encourage you to actually look at the issue and the numbers and make up your own mind about it.

Quote from: HaffrungSaying unassimilated muslims are causing civil strife in Europe is one thing; saying they will make up a majority of the population in some countries within a hundred years is another matter entirely.

As we've seen here in the United States, you don't NEED a majority of the population to have an influence on how things are done. George Bush ring any bells? He was elected by about what, 20% of the total US population - twice? How'd that work out?

So - need a majority to forever change a society, a country, or the world? Not so much. You just need a highly cohesive and motivated minority. And if the last 1300 years haven't shown us anything else, it has proven that Muslims are pretty damn cohesive and motivated. Much like any fanatical religious sect.

Quote from: HaffrungThe birth rate of native Europeans has stabilized and is even on the rise in most of Northern Europe, including the UK and France. It's unlikely that muslim birth rates will continue to stay at their current rate for another two or three generations - education of women eventually brings down the birth rate in every society, no matter how religious. And European countries like the Netherlands are now taking steps to ensure muslim immigrants and their sons cannot import illiterate wives from their native lands.

Stabilized. At, what... 1.3 children per couple? That's Italy. 1.5 for Germany. Of course those numbers are from 2005. Even leaving the muslim immigrants out of the equation those number don't bode well for Europes population. Estimates include 1/3 of the population being 65 and up by 2050.  If that doesn't sound bad, you aren't thinking it through. Now add a growing influx of fast breeding muslims to the mix, with little to no effort to integrate them into the existing culture... You can argue that education will reduce birthrates, but the simple fact is, like any other second class citizens (third generation immigrants indeed) most of them aren't really getting that good an education.

Quote from: HaffrungAbsolute bullshit, that only shows how clueless (or malicious) many American commentators are about Europe. Muslims make up 5-10 per cent (depending on who you ask) of the population of France. And of people who identify themselves as of muslim heritage, 36% self-describe themselves as "observant believers", and only 20% claim to regularly go to the mosque on Fridays. [source: Islam in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France)]

Maybe the fault is mine, it was an old memory drudged up from two fucking years ago. I don't know where you were when it was going down, but I was a walking target, so forgive me if my memory is a little shaky.  And what the fuck do your percentages have to do with anything?  That a bunch of them are 'weekend muslims'? So what? Its not just religion, its culture and group identity.  

Interestingly, while my offhand comment may have been in error, yours isn't much better.

France, considered by Wikipedia to be the most fertile European country, has a population of 61 million. 14million or more are immigrants.  Let me quote:

Quote from: WikiNote that this means the population that is not of foreign ancestry is only about 46 million, which is not much higher than France's population at the end of World War II (1945

So, the European nation with the strictest immigration laws, the least dynamic immigrant labor need and the second highest birthrate in Europe (after Ireland) is barely holding steady for Fifty.Motherfucking.Years.  Need I also point out that the immigration rate is 90% non-European, that means north african (90 thousand out of 140 thousand) and Arab, with a handful of presumably non-muslim 'indochinese'... though of course, given the region thats not as certain as we make it sound.

Of course, all of these numbers are only, so far as we know, the legal and reported immigrants and births.

Quote from: John MorrowIf current trends continue...

Of course, demographic trends do not continue forever. As I pointed out in my previous post, there was a time when demographic trends showed the United States would eventually be 100 per cent Italian.

Quote from: WerekoalaAnd if the last 1300 years haven't shown us anything else, it has proven that Muslims are pretty damn cohesive and motivated. Much like any fanatical religious sect.

Yeah, except for the 65 per cent of French muslims who do not consider themselves practicing faithful, and the 80 per cent who do not even go to mosque.

But don't let facts get in the way of your frightened bigotry.

Quote from: HaffrungYeah, except for the 65 per cent of French muslims who do not consider themselves practicing faithful, and the 80 per cent who do not even go to mosque.

But don't let facts get in the way of your frightened bigotry.

Oh, I won't, if you don't let reality get in the way of your self-righteous blindness.

Quote from: HaffrungSaying unassimilated muslims are causing civil strife in Europe is one thing; saying they will make up a majority of the population in some countries within a hundred years is another matter entirely.

The real alarmists are talking about majorities in far less time than that.  I was being somewhat generous.

Quote from: HaffrungThe thing about demographic patterns is that they're fluid.

That's true.  And if there was evidence that most of those Muslims were assimilating and adopting European birth rate patterns, I wouldn't really care.  My concern is not that darker skinned people from the Middle East inherit Europe nor even Islam, per se.  After all, the original occupants of Europe came from the same area.  My concern is with radical Islam and the unpleasant culture that comes along with it.

Quote from: HaffrungDidn't happen, though at the time most Americans of anglo descent believed that assimilation by Italians was near impossible, what with their illiteracy, popery, lack of democratic traditions, huge families, etc.

I don't believe that the assimilation of Muslims is near impossible.  I believe that the specifics of the current situation discourages it and, in the case of radical muslims, quite possibly intentional.  In fact, I detailed several of those specifics in my original response on this topic.  Change the specifics and of course things can change.

Quote from: HaffrungThe birth rate of native Europeans has stabilized and is even on the rise in most of Northern Europe, including the UK and France.

Still below replacement level and nowhere near as high as that of immigrants.

Quote from: HaffrungIt's unlikely that muslim birth rates will continue to stay at their current rate for another two or three generations - education of women eventually brings down the birth rate in every society, no matter how religious.

The problem is that the women in immigrant communities in many places in Europe, particularly the ethnic enclaves, are not being allowed to assimilate.  I think you need to read some of the critiques, including those of some Muslim women in Europe who do want things to change.

Quote from: HaffrungAnd European countries like the Netherlands are now taking steps to ensure muslim immigrants and their sons cannot import illiterate wives from their native lands.

And that's great.  And if they can break the current pattern, things can change.

Quote from: HaffrungThe difficulty assimilating muslims into European society is a serious problem. But it's not the apocalyptic struggle for survival that the many on the right want to believe.

Well, if nothing is done about it, it could be very nasty.  If something is done about it, maybe things will work out OK.

Quote from: HaffrungSaying unassimilated muslims are causing civil strife in Europe is one thing; saying they will make up a majority of the population in some countries within a hundred years is another matter entirely.

Also moderate Muslims were once the majority in many places around the world but that changed.  Why and how?  Look at what Lebanon was like in the 1970s.  Or Iran.  Why is violence against tourists up in Egypt?  And why does Turkey have to keep working so hard to remain secular?  Yes, demographics are fluid and so is culture.

Quote from: HaffrungMuslims make up 5-10 per cent (depending on who you ask) of the population of France.

What percentage of people under 20 are Muslims?

Quote from: HaffrungOf course, demographic trends do not continue forever. As I pointed out in my previous post, there was a time when demographic trends showed the United States would eventually be 100 per cent Italian.

I'm not relying on the demographics, alone, but the cultural conditions that maintain them.  I don't see the indigenous European population shifting to big families and there are plenty of things, including simply poverty and cultural isolation, that suggest the the birth rate among the immigrant population (not just Muslims) will remain relatively high.  And as I said, the problem isn't really Islam or that the people are of Middle Eastern descent but with radical Islam and the cultural package that seems to be resisting assimilation so far.  I'd be quite happy to see evidence of that changing but, so far, I don't.

Quote from: John MorrowWill you accept the Brookings Institution as a valid source?

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2003/03middleeast_taspinar.aspx

"Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent."

Here is Mark Steyn's more partisan and alarmist analysis:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

I invite you to do your own research on European demographics and make up your own mind.  Steyn certainly has his critics and there is certainly a lot of bald racism on the demographics alarmism side so you should read both sides of this issue.  But I encourage you to actually look at the issue and the numbers and make up your own mind about it.

The thing is that the birth rates won't hold in the next generation.
Sure, the immigrant generation will have 5 kids. The next generation will have 2, or 1; going to European standard, because it is the social and economic conditions of life in europe that make the low birth rate the standard.

Likewise, fanaticism will of course pass to some degree onto the next generation, but you cannot fight the dominant values of the culture completely. As the son of immigrants I know this personally; and in Canada this is something that has shown to be true time and time again. It doesn't matter how conservative the first generation coming to a country is, the second generation will overall be less so. And the third? Forget it.

RPGPundit

PS: of course, one thing that works against Europe in comparison to the US or Canada is the fact that citizenship isn't automatic by birth.  So theoretically you could have generations of muslims living in Germany but not holding German citizenship, making them a perennially excluded minority.  Part of why assimilation works so well in Canada or the US is that no matter how isolated and seperate the first generation of an immigrant wave is made to feel, subsequent generations are made to identify more directly with the nation of their birth than the nation of their background. That doesn't work so well if you're denied basic citizenship rights.

Quote from: RPGPunditLikewise, fanaticism will of course pass to some degree onto the next generation, but you cannot fight the dominant values of the culture completely. As the son of immigrants I know this personally; and in Canada this is something that has shown to be true time and time again. It doesn't matter how conservative the first generation coming to a country is, the second generation will overall be less so. And the third? Forget it.

I've heard this as the argument promoting the notion that Americans should embrace muslim immigrants.  Inclusion into a pluralistic society that guarantees religious freedoms and allows social mobility will eventually lead to a moderate and progressive form of Islam.

!i!

Quote from: RPGPunditThe thing is that the birth rates won't hold in the next generation.  Sure, the immigrant generation will have 5 kids. The next generation will have 2, or 1; going to European standard, because it is the social and economic conditions of life in europe that make the low birth rate the standard.

The problem is that the the children of these immigrants are often also insulated from the social and economic conditions of a normal life in Europe by high unemployment, public housing projects, prejudice, neglect, and conditions upon citizenship.  ADDED:  And they also sometimes bring in illiterate women from their countries of origin to be wives, as was mentioned earlier in this thread where it was mentioned that at least one European country is trying to stop it.

Quote from: RPGPunditLikewise, fanaticism will of course pass to some degree onto the next generation, but you cannot fight the dominant values of the culture completely. As the son of immigrants I know this personally; and in Canada this is something that has shown to be true time and time again. It doesn't matter how conservative the first generation coming to a country is, the second generation will overall be less so. And the third? Forget it.

In the United States and (I'll take your word for it) Canada, I agree.  There is a reason why you don't see Muslim youths rioting in the United States or Canada the way they rioted in France.  

Quote from: RPGPunditPS: of course, one thing that works against Europe in comparison to the US or Canada is the fact that citizenship isn't automatic by birth.  So theoretically you could have generations of muslims living in Germany but not holding German citizenship, making them a perennially excluded minority.  Part of why assimilation works so well in Canada or the US is that no matter how isolated and seperate the first generation of an immigrant wave is made to feel, subsequent generations are made to identify more directly with the nation of their birth than the nation of their background. That doesn't work so well if you're denied basic citizenship rights.

Correct, which is why I mentioned the phrase "third generation immigrants" earlier in the thread.  It also makes them worry about maintaining their ethnic identity because, as immigrants, they could always be deported or have to rely on their own ethnic community for support.  It makes it very difficult for them to cut their ties.  I see plenty of evidence that the dynamic you are talking about is not as robust in Europe as it is in the US or Canada.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI've heard this as the argument promoting the notion that Americans should embrace muslim immigrants.  Inclusion into a pluralistic society that guarantees religious freedoms and allows social mobility will eventually lead to a moderate and progressive form of Islam.

There are plenty of moderate Muslims in the United States.  One of my friends (and someone I've role-played with) is not only a Shiite Muslim but also a libertarian.  I have no problem with moderate Muslim immigrants and think that a moderate and progressive form of Islam is certainly possible.

Quote from: RPGPunditIt doesn't matter how conservative the first generation coming to a country is, the second generation will overall be less so. And the third? Forget it.

A couple years ago the Globe and Mail ran an in-depth series of features on second-generation immigrants in Canada. Their data showed that second-generation 25-year-old Canadians have near-identitical attitudes to 25-year-old Canadians whose lineage goes back three generations or more. And this was on a whole array of issues, such as the role of government, attitutudes towards women, freedom of expression, etc. The fact that second-generation children of immigrants in Canada attend post-secondary education at the same rate as their non-immigrant counterparts is probably the best reason for optimism about successful integration.

Quote from: John MorrowThere are plenty of moderate Muslims in the United States.

Precisely.  It serves as a good model of what contemporary Islam can be.

QuoteI have no problem with moderate Muslim immigrants...

Oh'p...we're slipping off the edge here, aren't we?  The point I was making before is that the Islamic community, environment, and mood in the US can be a moderat-ing influence on Muslim immigrants.  The fact that a Muslim wants to come to the US is probably the first filtering influence -- already moderate-to-liberal Muslims are those most likely to want to come here.  But plenty of very conservative Muslims want or even need to come here as well (refugee status with few or no options, existing families bringing them over, etc.), and they shouldn't be turned away at the borders by virtue of their religious practices alone.  By all means, those with radical political agendas need to be scrutinised and withheld, but that's a common sense notion that applies to all immigrants regardless of origin or belief.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaPrecisely.  It serves as a good model of what contemporary Islam can be.

Yes.

Quote from: RPGPunditOh'p...we're slipping off the edge here, aren't we?  The point I was making before is that the Islamic community, environment, and mood in the US can be a moderat-ing influence on Muslim immigrants.

Let me rephrase that the way I meant it.  I have no problem with non-radical Muslims.  Frankly, I don't want immigrants in the United States that hate the United States and the majority of other Americans, regardless of the cause for their feelings, religious or otherwise.

Quote from: RPGPunditBy all means, those with radical political agendas need to be scrutinised and withheld, but that's a common sense notion that applies to all immigrants regardless of origin or belief.

Well, you'd think so but not everyone feels that way, which is why I don't take it as a given.

Quote from: John MorrowI have no problem with non-radical Muslims.

I have no problem with non-radical anyone, and that includes native-born citizens.

By the way, I'd wondered if that's what you'd meant.  We appear to be in agreement.

!i!

Quote from: HaffrungIf Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck are lefty liberals by American standards, then the USA is in even more trouble than I thought.

Fucking Barry "Mr. Conservative" Goldwater is considered to be a lefty liberal by the new wave of neo-cons.  That's how fucked up things are.

Seriously, Barry fucking Goldwater was considered to be too liberal by the religious right.

How messed up is that?

Quote from: HaffrungA couple years ago the Globe and Mail ran an in-depth series of features on second-generation immigrants in Canada. Their data showed that second-generation 25-year-old Canadians have near-identitical attitudes to 25-year-old Canadians whose lineage goes back three generations or more. And this was on a whole array of issues, such as the role of government, attitutudes towards women, freedom of expression, etc. The fact that second-generation children of immigrants in Canada attend post-secondary education at the same rate as their non-immigrant counterparts is probably the best reason for optimism about successful integration.

Well... immigrants from where might be a factor in that kind of research as well.  My family is first generation immigrants to Canada, but we're from the UK, and all those attitudes are pretty similar between the two countries.

Quote from: StuartWell... immigrants from where might be a factor in that kind of research as well.  My family is first generation immigrants to Canada, but we're from the UK, and all those attitudes are pretty similar between the two countries.

For the last 30 years, immigrants to Canada have been overwhelmingly non-European. The top countries of origin for immigrants in 2003 were China, India, Phillipines, Pakistan, and Iran. The study looked at second generation immigrants who are 25 (as of last year), so I'd say most of them would be Asian.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI've heard this as the argument promoting the notion that Americans should embrace muslim immigrants.  Inclusion into a pluralistic society that guarantees religious freedoms and allows social mobility will eventually lead to a moderate and progressive form of Islam.

!i!

I agree. If there was a really sizeable NATIVE muslim population in the West (and in Europe there will be in one generation) this will have a powerful effect on changing the nature of Islam as a religion, as the religious thinkers that emerge as "natives" of these countries will be very different in their thinking than the wahabis coming out of Saudi Arabia.

The single biggest cause of the conflict between islam and the west is wahabism.  Strengthen muslim intellectual presence outside of Saudi Arabia (home of wahabism) and actively encourage schools of thought in Islam outside wahabism (and there's tons to choose from), and you'll harm Al-Qaeda in a way that no amount of patriot missiles possibly could.

RPGPundit

Quote from: HaffrungFor the last 30 years, immigrants to Canada have been overwhelmingly non-European. The top countries of origin for immigrants in 2003 were China, India, Phillipines, Pakistan, and Iran. The study looked at second generation immigrants who are 25 (as of last year), so I'd say most of them would be Asian.

Exactly. The problem facing Europe is not that of producing enough white babies named Pierre and Hans, but of producing enough _Westerners_. And it's doing that well enough to continue for the foreseeable future.

Quote from: James J SkachYeah...I suppose I could track them down, but Warthur, this has been in the news for at least a year or more.  It's essentially an old story now. There's been a lot of talk of this since more attacks and plans seemed to be pointing at Europe and the folks there started to struggle with the question - "Wait.  We didn't invade Iraq.  How come they want to attack us?"

The largest terror attack in Europe that I can recall was the Madrid bombing, and, erm, Spain was our ally in going into Iraq.

(And yes, someone's going to point out that in the election a few days after the bombing the anti-war Socialists won, but don't forget that that was after it was proved that the pro-war ruling party had lied through its teeth about the bombing, loudly and confidently pointing the blame at Basque terrorists who, for once, were actually innocent in this case before the facts were even established. Do not, do not, do not get caught exploiting murderous political attacks for your personal political gain days before an election; it's an excellent way to lose.)

QuoteOh yeah - Spike's right -the rioting in France too....

The rioting in France proves that Muslims are going to outbreed non-Muslims in Europe? How's that then?

Incidentally, I don't recall anyone claiming that the riots were instigated by Islamists. They had more to do with perceived racism against people from Muslim countries in France - bear in mind that a lot of those immigrants were from Algeria, former French colony and site of a really nasty war of independence after WWII. Whether or not the complaints of the immigrants were justified is another argument, but the fact is that those riots were more analagous to, say, race riots in Britain in the 1980s.

Quote from: John MorrowWill you accept the Brookings Institution as a valid source?

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2003/03middleeast_taspinar.aspx

"Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent."

OK, taking numbers from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims_in_Western_Europe) we can see that as of 2003 Muslims account for 3.8% of the population of Western Europe (total European population is 390741336, of which 14882715 are Muslims.)

So, assuming that the Brookings data is correct, and assuming that birth rates don't change, and assuming that Muslims will have Muslim children, and non-Muslims will have non-Muslim children, what this means is that by 2015 the Muslim population will have doubled to 29765430, and the non-Muslim population will have reduced to somewhere around ((390741336-14882715)*.965=) 362703569.3. This would mean that Muslims would comprise 8.2% of the European population. Assuming that these trends remain constant, the Muslim population won't hit 50% until early in 2129.

But then, birth rates change, for reasons which have already been explained to you. We can expect the Muslim birth rate to decrease, for various reasons. We know damn well that the rate of decrease of the non-Muslim population will slow right down, once the baby-boomers have died off (currently, it's the death of this unusually large portion of the population which is causing the comparatively rapid population decrease). And most importantly, no population's birth rate has ever remained at a constant, stable level for 120 years. It simply doesn't happen.

It's not looking good for the Muslim majority conspiracy theory, any more than it did for the Italian majority conspiracy theory in the US in the 1800s.

Quote from: WerekoalaSo - need a majority to forever change a society, a country, or the world? Not so much. You just need a highly cohesive and motivated minority. And if the last 1300 years haven't shown us anything else, it has proven that Muslims are pretty damn cohesive and motivated. Much like any fanatical religious sect.

Historically Islam has been cohesive and unified at only one point in history. Then Muhammad died and it all went to shit. Do the terms "Sunni", "Shi'ia", "Sufi" mean anything to you? Do you really think the religious viewpoints Wahabi-dominated Saudi Arabia are reflected by the populations of, say, Malaysia or Morocco or Turkey?

Islam is pretty dang fractious: it's a hell of a lot more divided today than Christianity was when it was 1300 years old.

Quote from: John MorrowThe problem is that the the children of these immigrants are often also insulated from the social and economic conditions of a normal life in Europe by high unemployment, public housing projects, prejudice, neglect, and conditions upon citizenship.  ADDED:  And they also sometimes bring in illiterate women from their countries of origin to be wives, as was mentioned earlier in this thread where it was mentioned that at least one European country is trying to stop it.

Wow. That's so fucking stunningly different from the experience of every other immigrant population anywhere in the world, ever.

Quote from: WarthurThe largest terror attack in Europe that I can recall was the Madrid bombing, and, erm, Spain was our ally in going into Iraq.

IIRC, there was a rather large attack in London, yes? Recently? And all of the worry in, what, the Netherlends when the movie dude was killed?  sorry for the lack of specificity, it's early.

Quote from: WarthurThe rioting in France proves that Muslims are going to outbreed non-Muslims in Europe? How's that then?

No no, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.  It was around those events that people were talking about the population issues.

The point was never that the attacks or the rioting were direct indications of population issues - it was that I seemed to recall that it was around these events that the discussion about population sparked anew. It was so common for a while there, I was surprised you seemed surprised by it.

Quote from: WarthurOK, taking numbers from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims_in_Western_Europe) we can see that as of 2003 Muslims account for 3.8% of the population of Western Europe (total European population is 390741336, of which 14882715 are Muslims.)

So, assuming that the Brookings data is correct, and assuming that birth rates don't change, and assuming that Muslims will have Muslim children, and non-Muslims will have non-Muslim children, what this means is that by 2015 the Muslim population will have doubled to 29765430, and the non-Muslim population will have reduced to somewhere around ((390741336-14882715)*.965=) 362703569.3. This would mean that Muslims would comprise 8.2% of the European population. Assuming that these trends remain constant, the Muslim population won't hit 50% until early in 2129.

But then, birth rates change, for reasons which have already been explained to you. We can expect the Muslim birth rate to decrease, for various reasons. We know damn well that the rate of decrease of the non-Muslim population will slow right down, once the baby-boomers have died off (currently, it's the death of this unusually large portion of the population which is causing the comparatively rapid population decrease). And most importantly, no population's birth rate has ever remained at a constant, stable level for 120 years. It simply doesn't happen.

It's not looking good for the Muslim majority conspiracy theory, any more than it did for the Italian majority conspiracy theory in the US in the 1800s.

Warthur - you seem to be good with numbers (see Koltar's thread about retail numbers), so maybe you can help.

How does this break down by country? Mr. Morrow might have used Europe for short hand, but I seem to recall the discussion were always about specific countries (France, England, Germany seem to come to mind). Are numbers available for specific countries?

Second, how does immigration factor into your estimates? That is, if you take the birth rates, and the rate of immigration, how does it change the outcome?

Quote from: James J SkachIIRC, there was a rather large attack in London, yes? Recently? And all of the worry in, what, the Netherlends when the movie dude was killed?  sorry for the lack of specificity, it's early.

I believe the death toll in the London attack was less than the Madrid attacks (and Britain was also involved in the Iraq war). The movie dude was killed by a lone nut with no connection to Islamic terrorist organisations (as much as he may have wished otherwise).

QuoteThe point was never that the attacks or the rioting were direct indications of population issues - it was that I seemed to recall that it was around these events that the discussion about population sparked anew. It was so common for a while there, I was surprised you seemed surprised by it.

I'm aware that people have raised the old chestnut about Shifty-Eyed Immigrant Population X overwhelming Solid Native-Born Population Y underneath a tidal wave of babies, I didn't know how common the idea was.

Quote from: James J SkachWarthur - you seem to be good with numbers (see Koltar's thread about retail numbers), so maybe you can help.

How does this break down by country? Mr. Morrow might have used Europe for short hand, but I seem to recall the discussion were always about specific countries (France, England, Germany seem to come to mind). Are numbers available for specific countries?

I don't think the study you linked me to provides data for individual countries, so no.

QuoteSecond, how does immigration factor into your estimates? That is, if you take the birth rates, and the rate of immigration, how does it change the outcome?

I believe the study you linked me to included immigration.

Incidentally, I can't recall any time in history where an immigrant population - by which I mean a population which moves into a country and bids for citizenship under the current government, as opposed to colonists who simply turn up and set up their own government (like European colonists did pretty much all over the world) - managed to actually take over a country. You'd think, the number of times chicken littles have claimed it was about to happen, that it'd have happened at least once before now.

Quote from: WarthurI believe the death toll in the London attack was less than the Madrid attacks (and Britain was also involved in the Iraq war). The movie dude was killed by a lone nut with no connection to Islamic terrorist organisations (as much as he may have wished otherwise).

Look, I don't want to argue whether or not other countries fear terrorist attacks - it seems silly on its face. Here's a link (http://www.synovate.com/knowledge/infact/issues/200510/q1-table.gif) from 2005 to a survey that shows 84% in France, 68% in the Netherlands, and 47% in Germany fear attacks.  all countries that did not support - hell actively opposed - Iraq.

Again, the point was that this discussion comes up every time there's an attack or a major arrest or incident.

Quote from: WarthurI'm aware that people have raised the old chestnut about Shifty-Eyed Immigrant Population X overwhelming Solid Native-Born Population Y underneath a tidal wave of babies, I didn't know how common the idea was.

I didn't see any of the shit your piping in now, Warthur. Honestly, people are not allowed to even bring the possibility up because it offends your politically correct sensibilities? John made a comment. You seemed surprised he could even think such a thing. It's not out of the realm to discuss these things without it being some great anti-immigrant/racist thing you seem to want to make it. It's obvious others have speculated about it. I mean, Brookings doesn't seem too extreme, does it?

Quote from: WarthurI don't think the study you linked me to provides data for individual countries, so no.


I believe the study you linked me to included immigration.

Incidentally, I can't recall any time in history where an immigrant population - by which I mean a population which moves into a country and bids for citizenship under the current government, as opposed to colonists who simply turn up and set up their own government (like European colonists did pretty much all over the world) - managed to actually take over a country. You'd think, the number of times chicken littles have claimed it was about to happen, that it'd have happened at least once before now.

I didn't link you to any studies about population.  The numbers you took are from Wikipedia.

And perhaps the reason you don't recall any time in history is because the level of immigration and the ability to bid for citizenship that exists today is rare by historical standards.  That's just a guess...

Quote from: James J SkachLook, I don't want to argue whether or not other countries fear terrorist attacks - it seems silly on its face. Here's a link (http://www.synovate.com/knowledge/infact/issues/200510/q1-table.gif) from 2005 to a survey that shows 84% in France, 68% in the Netherlands, and 47% in Germany fear attacks.  all countries that did not support - hell actively opposed - Iraq.

OK, we've been talking at cross purposes: you're talking about places where people are afraid of attacks (which is going to be most places: most people are afraid of violent death and terrorism is a potent modern symbol of that) and I'm talking about places where attacks actually happen.

I'd also point out that the countries you cite were mad keen for going into Afghanistan, so it's not as if they've never locked horns with al-Q. Check out the number of good buddies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom_-_Afghanistan:_Allies) the US could count on back in 2001. Reverting a little to the topic of the thread, I'd say that any President who could take the amount of goodwill that represents and then toss it all away in the last 6 years is pretty incredibly awful, at least on a diplomatic level. (Heck, Nixon for all his faults at least opened diplomatic communications with China.) I don't give Bush much credit for assembling the allies for Afghanistan because the international outrage at 9/11 was such that a dead chihuahua could have convinced the rest of the world to join a US invasion of Afghanistan; it's not as if the Taliban had been going out of its way beforehand to endear itself to the rest of the world.

QuoteI didn't see any of the shit your piping in now, Warthur. Honestly, people are not allowed to even bring the possibility up because it offends your politically correct sensibilities?

Oh, they're totally allowed to bring them up, just as I'm allowed to point out that their arguments are actually incorrect. That's how debate works! If you want a forum where you can speak your mind and nobody's allowed to challenge you, start your own (I reckon you should call it The James Skatch Skatchtastic Experience) and ruthlessly ban anyone who disagrees with you.

It's not any sensibilities of mine that are offended by the claims, it's my rationalism and my politically correct insistence that arguments be backed up by, you know, actual facts. I know, I know, they're silly liberal ideas from the Enlightenment, and what has the Enlightenment ever done from the states (aside from inspiring the Constitution...).

There is an objective reality outside of your head. Sometimes the facts there won't match the thoughts and feelings inside your head. Motherfucking deal with it already.

QuoteJohn made a comment. You seemed surprised he could even think such a thing.

It's always surprising when apparently intelligent people talk rubbish.

QuoteIt's not out of the realm to discuss these things without it being some great anti-immigrant/racist thing you seem to want to make it. It's obvious others have speculated about it. I mean, Brookings doesn't seem too extreme, does it?

It is possible to discuss the matter, yes, but at the same time it seems to be a stretch to consider the actual facts and come to the conclusion that OMG IMMIGRANTS ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER unless there is actually either a) actual racism at work, conscious or otherwise or b) a simple misunderstanding of demographics, statistics, and history which leads one to a conclusion which, while not stemming from any actual racist views, is inherently a racist conclusion. "I don't have anything against black people, but I can't argue with the evidence in The Bell Curve...."

The implicit undercurrent of a lot of these discussions is that "Europe is going to turn brown-skinned and Muslim... and I consider that a problem". The thing is, population movements are the sort of "problem" which can only be "fixed" by either a) stopping immigrants coming into the country altogether, which doesn't make economic, practical, or moral sense or b) ethnic or cultural cleansing. Neither solution seems sound to me.

Quote from: James J SkachI didn't link you to any studies about population.  The numbers you took are from Wikipedia.

What was the Brookings study about, lunch money?

QuoteAnd perhaps the reason you don't recall any time in history is because the level of immigration and the ability to bid for citizenship that exists today is rare by historical standards.  That's just a guess...

The US pioneered it in the 19th Century and it's never been taken over, not by Italians, not by Irish, not by nobody. Most Western societies have had such arrangements in place for nigh on 60 years and none of them have been taken over. Britain has accepted immigrant populations from all over the world for centuries, and they've all integrated, from Haguenots in the 16th century to European Jews in the early 20th to Carribeans, Indians, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis in the second half of the 20th Century. People integrate eventually. There's always a little friction, but it happens.

Quote from: James J SkachI didn't see any of the shit your piping in now, Warthur. Honestly, people are not allowed to even bring the possibility up because it offends your politically correct sensibilities? John made a comment. You seemed surprised he could even think such a thing. It's not out of the realm to discuss these things without it being some great anti-immigrant/racist thing you seem to want to make it. It's obvious others have speculated about it. I mean, Brookings doesn't seem too extreme, does it?

I don't think the qualifying criterion should be whether it is an offensive idea or not; the question should be whether it is a credible issue or not.
Given that similar "Immigration fears" have been predicted over and over again in places like the united states for the last 200 years, and in each and every single case the immigrant population of one "immigrant surge" ended up being so successfully integrated that they  formed part of the group complaining about the next surge of immigrants from some different place, I'd say that there's very little foundation in thinking "This time fer shure!" in believing that we'll be seeing Sharia Law in France or London renamed Londonistan in 20 years or other such nonsense.

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurOh, they're totally allowed to bring them up, just as I'm allowed to point out that their arguments are actually incorrect. That's how debate works! If you want a forum where you can speak your mind and nobody's allowed to challenge you, start your own (I reckon you should call it The James Skatch Skatchtastic Experience) and ruthlessly ban anyone who disagrees with you.

I would, but there's no 't' in my last name, it's right there, you could have spelled it right. But it's better to spout this nonsense than actually look at facts.

The Brookings report had not much more than the statistic about birth rates and speculation where that might lead if current trends continued.  Your response is twofold:

• Take static general population facts from 2003 and extrapolate.  Valid, except that I asked two questions – how does it break down by country and do they include immigration. Despite your comment, the numbers in the wikipedia article are broken down by country. Also, they say nothing about immigration – other than the fact that immigrants are include in the static figures provided.
• Immediately cast aspersions on anyone who disagrees with you or questions your conclusion.

But how does immigration fit into your napkin calculations?  That's the question. It's a factual question – not based on any racism or anti immigrant shit you write into everything you're reading here. It's simply a question about your calculations.  How dare I?!?!?

Quote from: WarthurIt's not any sensibilities of mine that are offended by the claims, it's my rationalism and my politically correct insistence that arguments be backed up by, you know, actual facts. I know, I know, they're silly liberal ideas from the Enlightenment, and what has the Enlightenment ever done from the states (aside from inspiring the Constitution...).

Facts that, when questioned, lead to the claims about motives and painting those doing the questioning with the racism card. I shouldn't be surprised, it's typical. At least Enlightenment has done something for the states. When it gets to you, let us know.

Quote from: WarthurThere is an objective reality outside of your head. Sometimes the facts there won't match the thoughts and feelings inside your head. Motherfucking deal with it already.

Yeah, one which includes people crossing borders, not simply continuing from the static point you provided.  So what happens when not only do the birth rates get figured in, but immigration rates as well?  Is that such a hard concept to fathom from your cold, dark, high place in the world?

Quote from: WarthurIt's always surprising when apparently intelligent people talk rubbish.

Which is why I was surprised that you would find the very concept so questionable. Why would you lie about the numbers from Wikipedia being broken down by country? Why would you claim your calculations include immigration? Perhaps your rationalism hits the wall for some reason.

Quote from: WarthurIt is possible to discuss the matter, yes, but at the same time it seems to be a stretch to consider the actual facts and come to the conclusion that OMG IMMIGRANTS ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER unless there is actually either a) actual racism at work, conscious or otherwise or b) a simple misunderstanding of demographics, statistics, and history which leads one to a conclusion which, while not stemming from any actual racist views, is inherently a racist conclusion. "I don't have anything against black people, but I can't argue with the evidence in The Bell Curve...."

Nice. Rational. Conclusion.  Simply bringing up the question makes you racist. And I don't recall anyone writing OMG IMMIGRANTS ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER. Perhaps not reading your own biases, prejudices, and some kind of weird guilt into everything you read would help.

Quote from: WarthurThe implicit undercurrent of a lot of these discussions is that "Europe is going to turn brown-skinned and Muslim... and I consider that a problem". The thing is, population movements are the sort of "problem" which can only be "fixed" by either a) stopping immigrants coming into the country altogether, which doesn't make economic, practical, or moral sense or b) ethnic or cultural cleansing. Neither solution seems sound to me.

No, that's your inferred undercurrent from this discussion. The questions I've seen raised in other discussions are tings like "What are the ramifications if this takes place? How will it change foreign policy, if at all? How will International Relations be altered, if at all?" Go read that Brookings article – it's hardly "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!" But even bringing up the concept here is "OMG STUPID RACIST AMERICAN!!!"

Quote from: WarthurWhat was the Brookings study about, lunch money?


The US pioneered it in the 19th Century and it's never been taken over, not by Italians, not by Irish, not by nobody. Most Western societies have had such arrangements in place for nigh on 60 years and none of them have been taken over. Britain has accepted immigrant populations from all over the world for centuries, and they've all integrated, from Haguenots in the 16th century to European Jews in the early 20th to Carribeans, Indians, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis in the second half of the 20th Century. People integrate eventually. There's always a little friction, but it happens.

I didn't link to it, Warthur. John Morrow did.  And it wasn't a study, it was an article.  It had a line in it that Mr. Morrow reproduced for you - to show that it's not some outrageous claim about how the population of Europe is or might be changing over the next few decades.

Like all predictions it's just that, a prediction.  It's a bit like being mad if someone says it's going to snow tomorrow, then saying it's never snowed on that day in all of history and that data from four years ago shows how the temperature is sure to be 60 F, then claiming the person is anti-sun for even considering snow tomorrow.

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't think the qualifying criterion should be whether it is an offensive idea or not; the question should be whether it is a credible issue or not.
Given that similar "Immigration fears" have been predicted over and over again in places like the united states for the last 200 years, and in each and every single case the immigrant population of one "immigrant surge" ended up being so successfully integrated that they  formed part of the group complaining about the next surge of immigrants from some different place, I'd say that there's very little foundation in thinking "This time fer shure!" in believing that we'll be seeing Sharia Law in France or London renamed Londonistan in 20 years or other such nonsense.

RPGPundit

I don't disagree that it's unlikely.  But in all of those cases, the immigrants were not increasing population while the native population didn't even keep up with replacement levels - so there are differences.  And it's those differences (along with things like Sharia Law being requested - did the Italians or the Irish ask for a different legal system?) that make people ask the question.

In my mind, those difference also make it a credible question - without having to raise the specter of racism or xenophobia.

Quote from: James J SkachI would, but there's no 't' in my last name, it's right there, you could have spelled it right.

I know, but "Skach" is ugly and is pronounced the same. Why not just go with the flow?

QuoteTake static general population facts from 2003 and extrapolate.  Valid, except that I asked two questions – how does it break down by country and do they include immigration. Despite your comment, the numbers in the wikipedia article are broken down by country.

Yes, but the crucial fact is that the statistics cited in the Brookings link are not broken down by country. It would not be statistically sound to apply their averages to every European country, because their statistics only take the whole of Europe into account - the non-Muslim population might be declining faster and slower in individual countries, and the Muslim population might be increasing more or less swiftly. A country-by-country analysis simply wouldn't be sound.

QuoteImmediately cast aspersions on anyone who disagrees with you or questions your conclusion.

If, tender bunny James, you consider it to be "casting aspersions" to say "You are wrong, and here is an argument why", then I'm casting aspersions. I was under the impression I was taking a part in the conversation with you.

QuoteBut how does immigration fit into your napkin calculations?  That's the question. It's a factual question – not based on any racism or anti immigrant shit you write into everything you're reading here. It's simply a question about your calculations.  How dare I?!?!?

OK, here's the answer: if the Brookings statistics took immigration into account, then my calculations do. If they didn't, my calculations don't. Brookings do not say; I am guessing, from the context, they're including it.

QuoteFacts that, when questioned, lead to the claims about motives and painting those doing the questioning with the racism card. I shouldn't be surprised, it's typical. At least Enlightenment has done something for the states. When it gets to you, let us know.

Why are you taking an attack on your argument as an attack on you? Why can't I say that you are sounding like a racist without accusing you of being a racist? I've never suggested that you are intentionally putting forth a racist argument, I'm just pointing out that you are echoing the argument which racists in the past have trotted out whenever the immigration has come up, ever, throughout recorded history.

QuoteYeah, one which includes people crossing borders, not simply continuing from the static point you provided.  So what happens when not only do the birth rates get figured in, but immigration rates as well?  Is that such a hard concept to fathom from your cold, dark, high place in the world?

Well, e-mail Brookings and ask them if their article took immigration into account. I'm happy to redo my calculations if their figures didn't include immigration.

QuoteWhich is why I was surprised that you would find the very concept so questionable. Why would you lie about the numbers from Wikipedia being broken down by country? Why would you claim your calculations include immigration? Perhaps your rationalism hits the wall for some reason.

I didn't talk about the numbers from Wikipedia, I was talking about the Brookings article.

QuoteNice. Rational. Conclusion.  Simply bringing up the question makes you racist.

It's not the bringing up the question that makes someone racist. It's bringing up the question, looking at the facts, and then coming to a conclusion which doesn't actually fit the facts that could be an indicator that someone's a racist. Alternatively - and in my opinion more likely - it's an indicator that someone's misunderstood the facts and statistics.

QuoteAnd I don't recall anyone writing OMG IMMIGRANTS ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER. Perhaps not reading your own biases, prejudices, and some kind of weird guilt into everything you read would help.

Perhaps I was hallucinating upthread when I saw people claiming that Muslims were going to become a majority in Europe. That looks an awful lot like a claim that Muslims are going to "take over".

Quote from: James J SkachI didn't link to it, Warthur. John Morrow did.  And it wasn't a study, it was an article.  It had a line in it that Mr. Morrow reproduced for you - to show that it's not some outrageous claim about how the population of Europe is or might be changing over the next few decades.

The claim that Europe was going to become majority-Muslim isn't even supported by the article that John cited. The most you can say is that the Muslim minority in Europe is going to get a bit larger.

QuoteLike all predictions it's just that, a prediction.  It's a bit like being mad if someone says it's going to snow tomorrow, then saying it's never snowed on that day in all of history and that data from four years ago shows how the temperature is sure to be 60 F, then claiming the person is anti-sun for even considering snow tomorrow.

It's more like someone claiming that aliens on the Moon are going to attack, and them citing an article that there's water on the Moon as if that proves that there's life there, and then me pointing out that the article doesn't support the argument and wondering whether the person who cited the article is actually insane or just not very knowledgeable about the subject, and then you weeping and wailing for the poor oppressed man who only wants to talk about the moon aliens and who's perfectly grown up and able to fight his own fights, and then making like I want to oppress him when I can't even stop him posting, and then me eventually getting so fucking tired that I whack you around the head with a lead pipe, force you to the ground, and rape you in the mouth over and over and over again until you get the message.

Whew, that was intense. Cigarette?

Quote from: James J SkachI don't disagree that it's unlikely.  But in all of those cases, the immigrants were not increasing population while the native population didn't even keep up with replacement levels - so there are differences.

Citations, please.

QuoteAnd it's those differences (along with things like Sharia Law being requested - did the Italians or the Irish ask for a different legal system?) that make people ask the question.

Who is requesting Sharia law? Marginal whackjobs or mainline community leaders? Where are they actually making headway here? The furthest I've seen it go is places like Canada, where Sharia courts operate on a voluntary basis - people can choose to bring cases before them, as opposed to before the civil courts, if they would prefer the case to be tried under Sharia law, and both plaintiff and defendant have to agree to abide by the court's judgement otherwise nothing's even slightly binding. I'm pretty sure nobody who isn't actually a nutjob has proposed that non-Muslims should be bound by Sharia law; plenty of moderate Muslim clerics have pointed out all sort of theological reasons why that's retarded.

The Sharia law thing, to my mind, is on the level of the argument that Italians and Irish couldn't possibly be loyal to the United States, because they're all Catholics and ultimately answer to the Pope, and that they import a whole bunch of priests who are part of the Catholic hierarchy and are probably Jesuit spies.

If anything, the "you can't trust a Papist to be loyal to the US" argument holds more water than the "OMG Sharia in Peoria!" argument. The Catholic Church is a worldwide organisation with a single leader; Islam is not. As such, the Catholic Church makes a far more credible conspiratorial organisation than some diffuse idea of "Islam".

Quote from: WarthurHistorically Islam has been cohesive and unified at only one point in history. Then Muhammad died and it all went to shit. Do the terms "Sunni", "Shi'ia", "Sufi" mean anything to you? Do you really think the religious viewpoints Wahabi-dominated Saudi Arabia are reflected by the populations of, say, Malaysia or Morocco or Turkey?

Islam is pretty dang fractious: it's a hell of a lot more divided today than Christianity was when it was 1300 years old.

I'm well aware of internal fighting - I'm also well aware that BOTH of their worldviews equate to Islam and Everyone Else. If you're not Islam, you a second rate citizen at best. I'm also aware that the more outspoken Islamists are talking in glowing (ha!) terms about nuking Israel and taking over the world - and they have nothing but time.

As we saw in Iraq, they are quite capable of working together when it suits their purposes. THEN they go back to killing each other.

Quote from: WerekoalaI'm well aware of internal fighting - I'm also well aware that BOTH of their worldviews equate to Islam and Everyone Else. If you're not Islam, you a second rate citizen at best. I'm also aware that the more outspoken Islamists are talking in glowing (ha!) terms about nuking Israel and taking over the world - and they have nothing but time.

As we saw in Iraq, they are quite capable of working together when it suits their purposes. THEN they go back to killing each other.

Wait, what? You're suggesting that the Shi'ite and Sunni insurgency factions are collaborating in Iraq? They might both be shooting at US troops, but that's only because the US is fighting both of them. They spend a lot of their energy trying to ethnically cleanse each other from contested districts of Baghdad.

Name one attack in Iraq where Sunni and Shi'ia factions joined forces to fight some third party.

Quote from: James J SkachHonestly, people are not allowed to even bring the possibility up because it offends your politically correct sensibilities? John made a comment. You seemed surprised he could even think such a thing. It's not out of the realm to discuss these things without it being some great anti-immigrant/racist thing you seem to want to make it.

I think it's the fact that there's some outrageously distorted notions floating around the U.S. about muslims in Europe (over half of France is muslim, when it's closer to 6 per cent). that has some of us wondering if it's more than simple ignorance at work.

There are influential people in the U.S., in the media and in government, who are furious with Western Europe over the decision to stay out of Iraq, and about Europe's unwillingness to buy into the Judeo-Christians versus the Muslim world Clash of Civilizations. They try to slur Western European policy-makers by implying that the reason Western Europe isn't backing Israel to the hilt in the Middle East the way the U.S. does is because of anti-semitism and fifth columnists in the form of their muslims populations.That's where a lot of this hyberbolic and frankly fictitious junk about muslims taking over Europe is coming from. By the time this stuff finds its way into American talk radio and watercooler talk, simple ignorance - along with a receptive audience - keeps it alive.

I mean, if a German posted on here that he'd heard in the German media that 80 per cent of America's black population is in prison, you may just wonder if there was a political agenda behind that misapprehension, rather than a simple error.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd it's those differences (along with things like Sharia Law being requested - did the Italians or the Irish ask for a different legal system?) that make people ask the question.

In 1991, Ontario gave a green light to the idea of using faith-based arbitration to settle family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritances outside the court system. Canadian Jews, and Catholics set up arbitration boards, but when Canadian Muslims made a bid in 2004 to set up Sharia-based arbitration panels, they ran into opposition. The Ontario Court of Appeal ended up ruling that all forms of religious arbitration were unconstitutional, which was a the proper ruling in my opinion.

So no, the bid to use religious laws to handle divorces, wills, and other issues of family law was not unique to Muslims.

Oh, and Canada has had a seperate Catholic public school system for about a century.

Quote from: WarthurI know, but "Skach" is ugly and is pronounced the same. Why not just go with the flow?

Wow, you've resorted to making fun of my name. And you're talking about being a grown man. Which are you going to do next, "Snatch", "Scratch" - I've heard just about all of them, dipshit. Should I just skip the chase and get my 6 year old son to take over - he just became enamored with "I know you are but what am I', so you should get along just fine.

Quote from: WarthurYes, but the crucial fact is that the statistics cited in the Brookings link are not broken down by country. It would not be statistically sound to apply their averages to every European country, because their statistics only take the whole of Europe into account - the non-Muslim population might be declining faster and slower in individual countries, and the Muslim population might be increasing more or less swiftly. A country-by-country analysis simply wouldn't be sound.

Sound?  Is this some kind of fucking term paper? How about, just for the sake of discussion, applying the European average to each country? It could at least be a starting point.  And then take into account immigration rates?  Nah, then you might find something closer to what's been hypothesized for someplace like France that is starting from 7.5% , almost twice the average Muslim population from which you begin projections.

Could specific birth rates in France come along and alter that?  Sure, but putting that caveat on it makes the numbers no less interesting.

Quote from: WarthurIf, tender bunny James, you consider it to be "casting aspersions" to say "You are wrong, and here is an argument why", then I'm casting aspersions. I was under the impression I was taking a part in the conversation with you.

I don't.  I consider including mischaracterizations of the original claim and providing motivations that include either racism or inherent racism as the only two possibilities as casting aspersions. Apparently, this is standard operating procedure for you, however.  Duly noted.

Quote from: WarthurOK, here's the answer: if the Brookings statistics took immigration into account, then my calculations do. If they didn't, my calculations don't. Brookings do not say; I am guessing, from the context, they're including it.

That's interesting – from the context I was guessing they didn't.  Which, of course, is why I asked.

Quote from: WarthurWhy are you taking an attack on your argument as an attack on you? Why can't I say that you are sounding like a racist without accusing you of being a racist? I've never suggested that you are intentionally putting forth a racist argument, I'm just pointing out that you are echoing the argument which racists in the past have trotted out whenever the immigration has come up, ever, throughout recorded history.

Nice – why?  What does it bring to table to bring that up – unless, of course, you feel that it actually has bearing on the conversation – thereby insinuating that those who do not agree that your calculations are as resoundingly final as you do must have other motives, like racism. Why not just go Godwin and be done with it.

Quote from: WarthurI didn't talk about the numbers from Wikipedia, I was talking about the Brookings article.

Quote from: WarthurOK, taking numbers from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims_in_Western_Europe) we can see that as of 2003 Muslims account for 3.8% of the population of Western Europe (total European population is 390741336, of which 14882715 are Muslims.)

Really, Warthur, are you fucking crazy? You presented, as the link to the data you were using, as the wikipedia article. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to follow - you gave the source, not me.

And why is it OK for you to take the Brookings information from 2005 and mix it with numbers from 2003, one summing Europe, one breaking it down, and running your comparison – but it's completely out of the question to apply the European average birth rate to each country for the purposes of this discussion?

Quote from: WarthurIt's not the bringing up the question that makes someone racist. It's bringing up the question, looking at the facts, and then coming to a conclusion which doesn't actually fit the facts that could be an indicator that someone's a racist. Alternatively - and in my opinion more likely - it's an indicator that someone's misunderstood the facts and statistics.

Or – just maybe – they don't agree that your statistical analysis is a "fact." It is fine for discussion purposes, but it's hardly a fact, is it?

Quote from: WarthurPerhaps I was hallucinating upthread when I saw people claiming that Muslims were going to become a majority in Europe. That looks an awful lot like a claim that Muslims are going to "take over".

Your own figures, which are based on figures from 2003 and don't, apparently, include immigration, show it happening in 2129. Granted, it's unlikely that all of the factors will remain in constant.  But you put in the "take over" based on your own bias.

Quote from: WarthurThe claim that Europe was going to become majority-Muslim isn't even supported by the article that John cited. The most you can say is that the Muslim minority in Europe is going to get a bit larger.

Ironically, your calculations do - in 2129.

Quote from: WarthurIt's more like someone claiming that aliens on the Moon are going to attack, and them citing an article that there's water on the Moon as if that proves that there's life there, and then me pointing out that the article doesn't support the argument and wondering whether the person who cited the article is actually insane or just not very knowledgeable about the subject, and then you weeping and wailing for the poor oppressed man who only wants to talk about the moon aliens and who's perfectly grown up and able to fight his own fights, and then making like I want to oppress him when I can't even stop him posting, and then me eventually getting so fucking tired that I whack you around the head with a lead pipe, force you to the ground, and rape you in the mouth over and over and over again until you get the message.

Whew, that was intense. Cigarette?

Nice. Why all the aggression? You sound like Vince Baker working out his issues with religion.  Where did the bad American touch you?

Quote from: HaffrungIn 1991, Ontario gave a green light to the idea of using faith-based arbitration to settle family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritances outside the court system. Canadian Jews, and Catholics set up arbitration boards, but when Canadian Muslims made a bid in 2004 to set up Sharia-based arbitration panels, they ran into opposition. The Ontario Court of Appeal ended up ruling that all forms of religious arbitration were unconstitutional, which was a the proper ruling in my opinion.

So no, the bid to use religious laws to handle divorces, wills, and other issues of family law was not unique to Muslims.

Oh, and Canada has had a seperate Catholic public school system for about a century.

Yeah, I heard about that.  And I agree with your agreement that the final ruling is the correct one.

And you really should do something about those Catholics!

Quote from: WarthurName one attack in Iraq where Sunni and Shi'ia factions joined forces to fight some third party.

Your wish is my command:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-concerned19nov19,0,973036.story?coll=la-home-center

I assume now that I've provided one example, you'll come up with some rationalization or claim that it is an isolated incident and demand more examples.

To respond the OP: I'm very dissapointed in Bush. I figured the first term, he'd do the stupid "New Tone" shit, kiss lib ass, and hold on for the second term, when he'd push through actual conservative policies.

Jesus H. Christ on a fucking pogo stick, was I wrong. He had the fucking house and senate.... the things he could have done! And when he saw the election results he could have shoved through so much those last few weeks, but noooooooooooo... he had to pussy up and play all moderate.

Fuck him. I want Zombie Demented Reagan in the White House. We'll start by feeding him GWB.

Quote from: James J SkachI don't disagree that it's unlikely.  But in all of those cases, the immigrants were not increasing population while the native population didn't even keep up with replacement levels - so there are differences.  And it's those differences (along with things like Sharia Law being requested - did the Italians or the Irish ask for a different legal system?) that make people ask the question.

One must wonder how many muslims would REALLY go for Sharia law... When the Irish and the Italians immigrated to the US, the big concern is that they'd all "vote as the archbishop tells them", and that the United States would be subverted by the Papacy.
It didn't really work out that way.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachWow, you've resorted to making fun of my name. And you're talking about being a grown man. Which are you going to do next, "Snatch", "Scratch" - I've heard just about all of them, dipshit.

I'm sorry if you're overly-sensitive about your name; I know what that's like, believe me. I wasn't making fun of you, just joking around.

(PS: What's the matter with Scratch? That's an awesome name!)

QuoteSound?  Is this some kind of fucking term paper? How about, just for the sake of discussion, applying the European average to each country?

Because I'm not about to sit here and throw around even more dubious statistics into the conversation and muddy the waters. Heck, I don't even trust the napkin calculations I threw out earlier, for reasons I pointed out.

QuoteI don't.  I consider including mischaracterizations of the original claim and providing motivations that include either racism or inherent racism as the only two possibilities as casting aspersions. Apparently, this is standard operating procedure for you, however.  Duly noted.

You keep missing the other possibility, which is - as I said earlier - "misunderstanding the facts". Whether this misunderstanding is on behalf of Morrow or the people he's citing or what is another question.

QuoteNice – why?  What does it bring to table to bring that up – unless, of course, you feel that it actually has bearing on the conversation – thereby insinuating that those who do not agree that your calculations are as resoundingly final as you do must have other motives, like racism. Why not just go Godwin and be done with it.

Or I could be insinuating that the people who are repeating this line are simply repeating things they have heard elsewhere without necessarily questioning them. I don't think Morrow is a racist. I do think he has heard all sorts of worrying ideas about the spread of Islam, and some of those ideas have roots in racist thought (not on Morrow's part, on the part of the people who come up with these ideas in the first place).

QuoteReally, Warthur, are you fucking crazy? You presented, as the link to the data you were using, as the wikipedia article. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to follow - you gave the source, not me.

OK, one last attempt to communicate: I took the PREDICTIONS from the BROOKINGS ARTICLE and applied them to the REAL-WORLD CENSUS DATA from WIKIPEDIA. The REAL-WORLD CENSUS DATA is as solid as such things can be; the BROOKINGS PREDICTIONS are more questionable, being predictions. I was pointing out that BASED ON THE REAL-WORLD CENSUS DATA the BROOKINGS PREDICTIONS suggest that it would require current birth rate and immigration trends to remain as they are for an incredibly unrealistically long time for a Muslim majority to materialise in Western Europe.

Can you see what I am doing here?

QuoteYour own figures, which are based on figures from 2003 and don't, apparently, include immigration, show it happening in 2129.

WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY INCLUDE IMMIGRATION BECAUSE BROOKINGS DO NOT SPECIFY. BROOKINGS. DO. NOT. SPECIFY. TALKING TO YOU IS LIKE SLAMMING MY HEAD INTO A BRICK WALL.

Quote from: James J SkachIronically, your calculations do - in 2129.

And the point I am trying to make is that it's absolutely ludicrous to imagine that the observed population growth rates in 2005 are going to remain constant and unchanging for 124 years. Ain't. Gonna. Happen. History has a way of wrecking population predictions; they might hold good for a few years, or even a decade or two, but once you get onto the century timescale then it's anyone's guess. Someone doing population studies in 1900 would have predicted a much larger European population in 2007 (and a significantly larger proportion of Jewish people) because they couldn't possibly guess that World War I and II and the Holocaust and Spanish Flu would happen.

QuoteNice. Why all the aggression? You sound like Vince Baker working out his issues with religion.  Where did the bad American touch you?

THAT "BAD AMERICAN" IS MY FIANCEE YOU JERK. /badum-tish!

But seriously, I was just trying to vent in a semi-humourous way and forgot that around here we do that with smilies, not text.

Would this :axe: be better?

Quote from: WerekoalaYour wish is my command:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-concerned19nov19,0,973036.story?coll=la-home-center

I assume now that I've provided one example, you'll come up with some rationalization or claim that it is an isolated incident and demand more examples.

Actually, I'm going to point out that I asked for attacks and you gave me citizens co-operating with the authorities to fight al-Qaeda and the Mahdi Army. We can take it as a given that moderate Sunni and Shi'ia Iraqis work together on things, but I was talking specifically about the insurgency - I can't find anywhere in that article where it suggests that Sunni and Shi'ia insurgency groups were collaborating to fight al-Q.

So, that example doesn't count because it's about a citizen's militia set up to defend the community from insurgency groups and keep the peace. Unless you can find some indication that this Awakening movement plans armed rebellion against the Iraqi government, or is planning attacks on US troops?

Quote from: WarthurActually, I'm going to point out that I asked for attacks and you gave me citizens co-operating with the authorities to fight al-Qaeda and the Mahdi Army. We can take it as a given that moderate Sunni and Shi'ia Iraqis work together on things, but I was talking specifically about the insurgency - I can't find anywhere in that article where it suggests that Sunni and Shi'ia insurgency groups were collaborating to fight al-Q.

So, that example doesn't count because it's about a citizen's militia set up to defend the community from insurgency groups and keep the peace. Unless you can find some indication that this Awakening movement plans armed rebellion against the Iraqi government, or is planning attacks on US troops?

I provided an example of Shia and Sunni working together to fight a third party, which is what you asked for. As I predicted, it wasn't good enough for you. Nothing provided would be sufficient - I've had enough of these "debates" to know how this works.

Just because they're not meeting the exacting specifications you need in order to make YOUR point dosn't mean I didn't make mine. They can work together for common goals, and even fight side by side, which is what I said, and which is why the "hopelessly factionalized"  argument against a united Muslim Front to impose Islam on the world dosn't hold any water with me.

At the end of the day, they might have different views, but they're all followers of Muhammed. We're not - therefore, we're the enemy of them both. They might hate each other, but together they hate us MORE.

Here's what I asked for:

QuoteName one attack in Iraq where Sunni and Shi'ia factions joined forces to fight some third party.

I didn't say "insurgency factions" because I thought that would be obvious from the context, but even so I specified an ATTACK. It's clear from the article that the Concerned Citizens are a defensive movement. They don't go out and lay the smackdown on people, they man checkpoints and defend their communities.

Furthermore, I would point out that I did ask for Sunni and Shi'ite factions, not a group containing both Sunni and Shi'ite individuals. Obviously individual Sunnis and Shi'ites can work together for a common goal - there's plenty of secularly-aligned insurgency groups in Iraq, like the Marxists. But for the sort of united plan for Muslim domination you're thinking of, that would require major Sunni and Shi'ite organisations working in close harmony over an extended period of time - and on an aggressive, expansionist project as opposed to the defence of their own homes. It won't happen; how are they meant to agree on which version of Islam will prevail? Anyone who's enough of an extremist to want to impose Islam on the world is almost certainly enough of an extremist that they don't regard competing sects as real Muslims. The Taliban and the Iranian government, for example, fucking hate each other: the Taliban are hardcore Sunnis, and the Iranians are hardcore Shi'ia.

Quote from: WarthurWow. That's so fucking stunningly different from the experience of every other immigrant population anywhere in the world, ever.

It's different from the immigrant populations that assimilate and integrate into the societies that the immigrate in to.

Quote from: James J SkachIIRC, there was a rather large attack in London, yes?

In the interest of disclosure, I suppose I should point out that one of the people I role-play with watched the events at the World Trade Center unfold outside of his office window and was almost trampled when the debris cloud from the first tower collapse hit the ferry terminal he was at.  Another person I role-play with was visiting London and traveling in the subways during that bombing and just barely missed (by maybe minutes) getting killed in that one.  And my wife and I used United Flight 93 out of Newark when we would visit San Francisco or travel through it on our way to Tokyo.  So excuse me if the risk of terrorism might seem a bit more real to me than those of you who don't expect to become or know victims.

Quote from: WarthurIncidentally, I can't recall any time in history where an immigrant population - by which I mean a population which moves into a country and bids for citizenship under the current government, as opposed to colonists who simply turn up and set up their own government (like European colonists did pretty much all over the world) - managed to actually take over a country.

Have you ever taken a class in Late Roman or Late Byzantine history?

Quote from: RPGPunditGiven that similar "Immigration fears" have been predicted over and over again in places like the united states for the last 200 years, and in each and every single case the immigrant population of one "immigrant surge" ended up being so successfully integrated that they  formed part of the group complaining about the next surge of immigrants from some different place, I'd say that there's very little foundation in thinking "This time fer shure!" in believing that we'll be seeing Sharia Law in France or London renamed Londonistan in 20 years or other such nonsense.

We're not talking about the United States.  We're talking about Europe, which has a very different history of immigration and ethnic strife than the United States does and conditions that those immigrants face that are substantially different than those in the United States, hence riots in France but not the United States.  Again, consider the phrase "third generation immigrant".  If a country still considers you an immigrant even after you've been born in the country and your parents have been born in that country, how does that square with your claims of "successful integration"?

Quote from: WarthurOK, here's the answer: if the Brookings statistics took immigration into account, then my calculations do. If they didn't, my calculations don't. Brookings do not say; I am guessing, from the context, they're including it.

I have no idea if they are or aren't.  My point was simply to give you a left-wing source that shows that if current trends continue, the point I made about population shifts is possible within 20 years of the period that I mentioned.  You and others essentially make a lot of assumptions about birth rates dropping, assimilation happening, non-immigrant birth rates stabilizing and not dropping further, immigration rates not increasing, and so on.  You are correct that things will likely not remain exactly was they are now for the next 100 years but for various reasons, any of those other assumptions you are making to claim "Don't worry, be happy!" could be wrong.

Quote from: WarthurPerhaps I was hallucinating upthread when I saw people claiming that Muslims were going to become a majority in Europe. That looks an awful lot like a claim that Muslims are going to "take over".

You can interpret that however you want.

Quote from: WarthurThe claim that Europe was going to become majority-Muslim isn't even supported by the article that John cited. The most you can say is that the Muslim minority in Europe is going to get a bit larger.

My original claim was, "For example, making sure that Muslim immigrants in Europe are isolated from the larger culture, radicalized by extremist mosques, and have a lot of kids could, based on current demographic trends, could make at least some European countries either substantially or predominantly Muslim countries in less than 100 years."

I chose the Brookings numbers because Brookings is a left-wing source so I didn't have to endure endless blather about "neo-con" sources.  You projected those numbers forward and said:

"Assuming that these trends remain constant, the Muslim population won't hit 50% until early in 2129."

That puts my claim, off by about 20 years, for all of Europe.  But my claim wasn't about all of Europe.  My claim was about at least some European countries.  And I said "either substantially or predominantly", not necessarily majority.  So, yeah, I think the Brookings numbers do support my claim, which was "based on current demographic trends".  I know what I was saying.  Do you know what I was saying?

Quote from: RPGPunditOne must wonder how many muslims would REALLY go for Sharia law... When the Irish and the Italians immigrated to the US, the big concern is that they'd all "vote as the archbishop tells them", and that the United States would be subverted by the Papacy.
It didn't really work out that way.

RPGPundit

That's an interesting question, Pundit. so I did a search, and found this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LRWDXK4VI4SJBQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/29/nmuslims29.xml). It claims that a study in 2007 of British Muslims...well..here..I'll just quote it.

"Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent."

It should be noted that this is from the Telegraph, but claims the study was done by a "right-wing think tank Policy Exchange."  I'm not sure what passes for right wing in the UK, or the validity of the survey analysis.

I was also interesting to note that the conjecture in this thread has been that as generations pass, the radical nature of the immigrant population (and it's children) diminishes. This study appears to contradict that.

Quote from: James J SkachIt should be noted that this is from the Telegraph, but claims the study was done by a "right-wing think tank Policy Exchange."  I'm not sure what passes for right wing in the UK, or the validity of the survey analysis.

I don't know if that study is correct or not (the numbers do seem a bit high) but I do know that it doesn't take a majority to give the radicals power.  All it takes is ample fear for the majority to shut up and avert their eyes.  As it is, media outlets that are more than happy to mock Jesus, Christianity, and Judaism are terrified of mocking Islam or even showing a drawing of Muhammad.  If it was respect, I'd expect them to show a little toward other religions.  It's fear and it's here already.

Quote from: WarthurName one attack in Iraq where Sunni and Shi'ia factions joined forces to fight some third party.

I don't know about Iraq but...

9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html)

Quote from: RPGPunditOne must wonder how many muslims would REALLY go for Sharia law... When the Irish and the Italians immigrated to the US, the big concern is that they'd all "vote as the archbishop tells them", and that the United States would be subverted by the Papacy.
It didn't really work out that way.

No, but you can look at the radicalization of Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland to get a good taste of what just a few nuts blowing each other up can do to even the moderates and people who have no interest in the fight.  If it always took a clear majority of people who really wanted something for it to happen, the world would probably be a much better place than it is.

Quote from: John MorrowHave you ever taken a class in Late Roman or Late Byzantine history?

To suggest that the Roman empire was "Taken over" because of their policies of integration into citizenship is a pretty absurd perception of Roman history.  The Roman Empire flourished specifically because it turned Citizenship into something that was a universal reward to anyone under its aegis based on merit and achievement, rather than racial background.

What fucked up the Roman Empire, among MANY other things, was the utilizing of barbarian germans as mercenaries and a steady growth in reliance on these mercenaries to fight their wars for them, to the point that Rome became utterly dependent on these mercenaries-for-hire, and then became helpless when these barbarians turned on them.

The historical example of rome is more of a warning against the use of "Civilian contractors" in place of a regular army, than a parable about the dangers of immigration.

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurOr I could be insinuating that the people who are repeating this line are simply repeating things they have heard elsewhere without necessarily questioning them. I don't think Morrow is a racist. I do think he has heard all sorts of worrying ideas about the spread of Islam, and some of those ideas have roots in racist thought (not on Morrow's part, on the part of the people who come up with these ideas in the first place).

Please don't assume that I haven't looked at the numbers or looked up articles on my own.  You are making a bunch of assumptions about assimilation and integration that may very well be true in the United States and Canada (you'll notice that I'm not expressing concern over Muslim immigrants to the US) but do not seem to be true in Europe.

Look at the unemployment numbers.
Look at the housing projects and residency patterns.
Look at the racism (both real and perceived)
Really consider the phrase "third generation immigrant"
And if you consider free speech an even moderately important right, consider what it means when European newspapers fear publishing a drawing of Muhammad.

Given all the fear the left expresses over the power of Christian Fundamentalists, I find it baffling that there is almost no concern over Muslim Fundamentalists.  Author Bruce Bawer wrote, "The main reason I'd been glad to leave America was Protestant fundamentalism. But Europe, I eventualy saw, was falling prey to an even more alarming fundamentalism whose leaders made their American counterparts look like amateurs."

Here (http://www.hudsonreview.com/bawerWi06.html) is an article he wrote on the subject that also talks to the differences in the way the US and Europe have dealt with immigration.  Bear in mind that he actually lived in a Muslim-majority neighborhood in Amsterdam.

Quote from: WarthurCan you see what I am doing here?

Yes.  You are assuming that the Brookings numbers are a worst case scenario and that things could not possibly be or get worse.

Quote from: James J SkachThat's an interesting question, Pundit. so I did a search, and found this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LRWDXK4VI4SJBQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/29/nmuslims29.xml). It claims that a study in 2007 of British Muslims...well..here..I'll just quote it.

"Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent."

It should be noted that this is from the Telegraph, but claims the study was done by a "right-wing think tank Policy Exchange."  I'm not sure what passes for right wing in the UK, or the validity of the survey analysis.

I was also interesting to note that the conjecture in this thread has been that as generations pass, the radical nature of the immigrant population (and it's children) diminishes. This study appears to contradict that.

There's a lot of factors at play in all this, not the least of which is the failure both inside and outside of the muslim world to encourage contrary philosophical schools inside islam besides Wahabism.

But the truth is also that a lot of these muslim youths who say they want sharia law also probably don't really know what Sharia Law really is.  I bet if you asked christian youths between the ages of 16-24 in the United States whether they'd want to live under "Biblical Law", you'd get a similar number of people saying yes; possibly even more. This is a product mostly of being ignorant of what it would really imply, and you'd likely see a lot of this support falling apart in the face of any actual moves to propose laws that matched some of the aspects of Sharia.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditTo suggest that the Roman empire was "Taken over" because of their policies of integration into citizenship is a pretty absurd perception of Roman history.  The Roman Empire flourished specifically because it turned Citizenship into something that was a universal reward to anyone under its aegis based on merit and achievement, rather than racial background.

Correct.  But that changed.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat fucked up the Roman Empire, among MANY other things, was the utilizing of barbarian germans as mercenaries and a steady growth in reliance on these mercenaries to fight their wars for them, to the point that Rome became utterly dependent on these mercenaries-for-hire, and then became helpless when these barbarians turned on them.

Correct.  The Byzantines did the same thing.  And what you need to ask yourself is that why, when Constantinople fell, that it was being attacked from all sides and had been reduced to a veritable island of Christianity.  While conquest was certainly involved, plenty of Turks had also been invited in as mercenaries and laborers.

Your problem is that you read "mercenaries" too literally.  In those days, those "mercenaries" brought their families in and settled in, without assimilating.  The problem, more broadly, is one of an elite bringing in immigrants to do their dirty work for them (military or otherwise) without making them a part of the society or assimilating them.  That's the problem.  The failure of assimilation.  

The Europeans need immigrants because their populations are aging and shrinking and without immigrants, their social welfare systems would be unmaintainable.  But many European countries are doing a poor job of integrating those immigrants into the general population.

Again, consider the phrase "third generation immigrants".  How would you feel if your hypothetical children, born in Canada, were still called "immigrants"?

Quote from: RPGPunditThe historical example of rome is more of a warning against the use of "Civilian contractors" in place of a regular army, than a parable about the dangers of immigration.

It's a parable about the dangers of immigration without assimilation, especially when the population in charge is shrinking.  The United States was built on immigration and I'm the descendant of immigrants so you don't need to tell me how wonderful immigration can be.  But without assimilation, it causes no end of problems.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut the truth is also that a lot of these muslim youths who say they want sharia law also probably don't really know what Sharia Law really is.  I bet if you asked christian youths between the ages of 16-24 in the United States whether they'd want to live under "Biblical Law", you'd get a similar number of people saying yes; possibly even more. This is a product mostly of being ignorant of what it would really imply, and you'd likely see a lot of this support falling apart in the face of any actual moves to propose laws that matched some of the aspects of Sharia.

Does this mean that you have no real concerns over Christian Fundamentalism in the US and believe that it will never possibly gain any real power?

Interesting.  As John points out, you seem to lack concern over young Muslims saying they want Sharia law, but you are frightened out of your mind about Christians in the US. If the Christian youth said "we want biblical law," wouldn't you be out of your mind claiming more proof about their intentions?

Finally, why does it matter if they really know?  Once under Sharia law, how are they going to escape - protesting? If they find out it wasn't what they signed up for, do you think the radical elders who pulled the bait and switch are just going to let them walk?

And here' (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/22/gw.poll/#cnnSTCText)s an interesting article on CNN from August of this year - about Christians in he US. Unfortunately, it's not broken down by age. But it says:

"Forty-five percent said religion should have no influence on government decisions, while 36 percent say it should have some influence, but not the major factor."

Doing the quick math, that leaves 19% who either think it should have more than some influence, perhaps he major factor, and any stragglers who had no opinion, etc.

I'll keep looking for an age breakdown...

Quote from: Koltarvoted for  because the alternative was not a good idea?

Yes.

Pete

Quote from: John MorrowIt's different from the immigrant populations that assimilate and integrate into the societies that the immigrate in to.

So a recently-arrived immigrant population is shockingly different from an immigrant population which has been around for generations? I'm surprised.

I hate to break it to you, John, but immigrant populations normally take generations to integrate.

Quote from: John MorrowIn the interest of disclosure, I suppose I should point out that one of the people I role-play with watched the events at the World Trade Center unfold outside of his office window and was almost trampled when the debris cloud from the first tower collapse hit the ferry terminal he was at.  Another person I role-play with was visiting London and traveling in the subways during that bombing and just barely missed (by maybe minutes) getting killed in that one.  And my wife and I used United Flight 93 out of Newark when we would visit San Francisco or travel through it on our way to Tokyo.  So excuse me if the risk of terrorism might seem a bit more real to me than those of you who don't expect to become or know victims.

And I lived through some of the nastier parts of the Northern Ireland conflict and still remember when IRA bombings were a semi-regular occurrence, but that doesn't give me a free ticket to spout off about Northern Ireland unchallenged.

Quote from: John MorrowHave you ever taken a class in Late Roman or Late Byzantine history?

Of course! Because the British army is becoming dependant on large bands of armed foreigners we're going to become decadent and our society will collapse!

Except, wait, the immigrants coming to Britain aren't actually armed mercenaries keen to sign up en masse to join our armies.

Quote from: John MorrowWe're not talking about the United States.  We're talking about Europe, which has a very different history of immigration and ethnic strife than the United States does and conditions that those immigrants face that are substantially different than those in the United States, hence riots in France but not the United States.

Of course. How could we forget the successful Huguenot coup in Britain in the 16th century? Or the control exerted by the Jews of London's East End in the early 20th Century? Or the current regime run by a junta of Caribbean and Indian immigrants? Except wait, that's crazy moon talk...

Quote from: John MorrowI have no idea if they are or aren't.  My point was simply to give you a left-wing source that shows that if current trends continue, the point I made about population shifts is possible within 20 years of the period that I mentioned.

Ah yes, the catastrophic population shift from "small minority" to "widely-visible minority". Still not quite the Muslim takeover people would like to paint it as.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't know about Iraq but...

9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html)

Interesting. I'd point out though, that according to the article Bin Laden decided against making the alliance closer than it already is because he didn't want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. This would tend to suggest that the sort of "worldwide Muslim domination conspiracy" Werekoala was talking about is unlikely: if Bin Laden's followers won't be happy with the idea of him collaborating with Iran on attacks on US interests, how would they react to him collaborating with them to restore the Caliphate (a concept that Shi'ites, incidentally, aren't keen on, mainly because the historical Caliphate was very much a Sunni institution)?

I think the Telegraph article needs to be taken with a pinch of perspective.

For one thing all these radical muslim youth also apparently state that

The report also raises questions about the scale of the problems created by Islamophobia, with 84 per cent of those questioned saying they believed they had been "treated fairly" in Britain.

There was also criticism of the decision by some councils to ban Christian symbols in case they offended Muslims or other communities.

Three quarters said it was wrong for a council to have banned an advert for a Christmas carol service.

Hardly the picture of black and white fanatacism.

I'm also shocked at the idea that 16-24 year olds could be at all more 'radical' than their parents or aspire to an alternative value and political system than the one they currently live in and are largely powerless within. Who would have thought it of that age group, so commonly known for their cautious, sceptical and world weary approach to life?

In another survey in the UK  (http://www.eauk.org/resources/info/statistics/orthodox-and-unorthodox-belief.cfm)it seems that 16-24 year olds across the board are also more likely to believe in magic, ghosts and such like. It doesn't mean that in 30 years time the UK govt will turn to tea leaves to predict the weather and spirit divination to find out historical facts.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe single biggest cause of the conflict between islam and the west is wahabism.  Strengthen muslim intellectual presence outside of Saudi Arabia (home of wahabism) and actively encourage schools of thought in Islam outside wahabism (and there's tons to choose from), and you'll harm Al-Qaeda in a way that no amount of patriot missiles possibly could.

To this point, there was an interesting little statement by Ujjal Dosanjh,  a prominent Liberal politician here, that was put in the evening news.  He warned politicians about allying themselves with religious leaders of ethnic minorities and using them to funnel their message.  The trap is that these leaders often promise lots of votes and big turnouts at rallies, but doing this, according to Dosanjh, alienates the vast majority of that ethnic group, who tend to be quiet and much more secular.  It also causes embarrassing situations, like all the candidates for the last federal election marching in a Sikh parade where there was a float dedicated to the guy who masterminded the Air India bombing.  

Dosanjh has been a long time opponent of Sikh extremists.  Actually, the Sikhs are a great example of an immigrant group that has brought an extremist minority with them and yet managed to integrate extremely well into the community in British Columbia, contributing to the culture and economy in generally a very good way.  Actually same with the Chinese.  But the rhetoric around these groups coming in in the early '80s was full of all the same kind of anxieties being discussed today about immigrants from the middle east.

Quote from: WarthurI hate to break it to you, John, but immigrant populations normally take generations to integrate.

They can integrate in one generation when they are similar to the population that are immigrating into (e.g., people from the UK, Australia, or Canada integrating into the US).  It usually takes two or three when the immigrant population wants to immigrate or is allowed to integrate.

But the point you keep ignoring is that not all populations integrate or want to, and things like racism, unemployment, residential patterns, education, the pace of immigration, and so on can thwart integration.  I invite you to take a good close look at the African-American community that, despite families who have been in the United States longer than many others, still are not wholly integrated into American society because of the legacy of racism, unemployment, segregation, and poor education.  I also invite you to take a look at Orthodox Jews and Hassidim who, because of the dietary requirements of their religion, often live in distinct communities and do not fully integrate into the societies around them.  In Europe, the Muslim communities combine both of those elements.  Remember that a practicing Muslim can't join his buddies at the pub for a pint after work.  (ADDED:  They can have a non-alcoholic drink, yes, but as someone who doesn't drink myself, it does create a socialization barrier.)

I have friends who are Muslim (as well as friends with families that kept kosher) and I know that there are ways mitigate those issues so that they're not that big of a deal and I know that assimilation does happen.  As a reminder, I'm not saying that Muslim immigrants can't assimilate, can't be a positive thing, and so on.  I know Muslim immigrants in the US, I'm glad to have them here, and I've even defended them against overtly bigoted comments.  You don't have to convince me that they can integrate.  I know they can.

What I'm saying, and the point you seem to keep ignoring perhaps because it doesn't fit into your one note argument, is that the situation in many European countries is different, with Muslim immigrants winding up in poor ethnic ghettos with high unemployment rates.  That's not how a country assimilates another group of people.  That's how a country alienates them.  Integrated immigrants of any sort of not a concern to me.  Alienated immigrants of any sort, however, are.  (It was alienated Irish immigrants who murdered blacks and burned down a black orphanage during the Civil War, a point glossed over in the movie Gangs of New York.)

As with everyone else on this thread who insists there isn't a problem, you haven't addressed the phrase "third generation immigrant".  You don't think that's a problem and barrier to integration?

Quote from: WarthurAnd I lived through some of the nastier parts of the Northern Ireland conflict and still remember when IRA bombings were a semi-regular occurrence, but that doesn't give me a free ticket to spout off about Northern Ireland unchallenged.

I'm not asking you to not challenge me.  I'm questioning the argument that terrorism is a non-factor that can be safely ignored.  If, during the IRA bombings, I were to have argued that the risk of being killed by an IRA bomb was low so that the UK government shouldn't have given any extra scrutiny to people from Northern Ireland with possible ties to the IRA, would you have considered that a reasonable argument?

It would also be helpful if you actually addressed the arguments I was making rather than the convenient straw men that you prefer to address.  Perhaps my American English isn't clear enough for you?  Or maybe you need to take that chip on your shoulder out for dinner and work things out.

Quote from: WarthurAh yes, the catastrophic population shift from "small minority" to "widely-visible minority". Still not quite the Muslim takeover people would like to paint it as.

Can you please explain to me why the EU isn't keen to have Turkey become a member?

If find this comment in the Panel thread:

Quote from: WarthurI think it is dangerous for any country, European or North American, to imagine that its populace is somehow immune or specially resistant to tyranny

...an interesting contrast to the optimism that you show about immigrants.  If you think it is dangerous for a country to imagine that it's population is immune or specially resistant to tyranny, why is your opinion of immigrants that they are somehow immune or specially resistant to the tyranny of radicals in their ranks?

Quote from: John MorrowCan you please explain to me why the EU isn't keen to have Turkey become a member?

All sorts of reasons.

- The decades-long wrangling between Greece and Turkey is a big deal. A really big deal. Greece and the Greece portion of Cyprus are EU members: Turkey and the Turkish portion are not. The debate between the UK and Spain (both EU members) over Gibraltar might get heated occasionally, but neither the UK nor Spain is actually going to get into a shooting war over it. Greece and Turkey have threatened to do so over Cyprus repeatedly, and tensions between them is high. For its part, you can bet that the Greeks have been lobbying insanely hard for Turkey to not be allowed into the EU, because that might cause the EU to take a more neutral stance on the Cyprus issue, and in other countries a lot of people believe that it would be inappropriate to admit a state to the EU when there's such an emotive and potentially-violent conflict that's still unresolved.

- Some member nations consider Turkey's human rights record to be a deal-breaker. The issue with the Kurds is the major problem, but there's all sorts of others - heck, Turkey won't even acknowledge the Armenian genocide, even though that was perpetrated by the Ottoman forces that Ataturk (the founder of modern Turkey) led the rebellion against. Many EU member states feel that to accept Turkey into the EU without demanding major reforms on this issue would be to condone its behaviour.

- Some, as I think you're pointing out, reckon that the EU should be a culturally Christian outfit, and consider there to be a cultural gulf between Europe and Turkey. I consider this the weakest argument; I would also question how many of those who espouse it genuinely believe it, and how many just use it because they don't want to say outright "I think Turkey should keep its damn hands off Cyprus". Certainly, the question doesn't seem to have come up in discussions about the possible admission of the various former Yugoslav republics, some of whom have a strong Muslim population.

Quote from: John Morrow...an interesting contrast to the optimism that you show about immigrants.  If you think it is dangerous for a country to imagine that it's population is immune or specially resistant to tyranny, why is your opinion of immigrants that they are somehow immune or specially resistant to the tyranny of radicals in their ranks?

They're not. But I don't consider them to be especially weak to said tyranny either. To be a tyrant, you need to be in authority; most Muslims in positions of religious authority are moderates, and just about all Muslims in positions of secular authority are moderates.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect.  But that changed.



Correct.  The Byzantines did the same thing.  And what you need to ask yourself is that why, when Constantinople fell, that it was being attacked from all sides and had been reduced to a veritable island of Christianity.  While conquest was certainly involved, plenty of Turks had also been invited in as mercenaries and laborers.

Your problem is that you read "mercenaries" too literally.  In those days, those "mercenaries" brought their families in and settled in, without assimilating.  The problem, more broadly, is one of an elite bringing in immigrants to do their dirty work for them (military or otherwise) without making them a part of the society or assimilating them.  That's the problem.  The failure of assimilation.  

The Europeans need immigrants because their populations are aging and shrinking and without immigrants, their social welfare systems would be unmaintainable.  But many European countries are doing a poor job of integrating those immigrants into the general population.

Again, consider the phrase "third generation immigrants".  How would you feel if your hypothetical children, born in Canada, were still called "immigrants"?

Then it would seem you're not arguing that we should stop immigration, but that this is a specifically European problem that could be solved by Europe extending citizenship to those people it brings in to work there, or at least to their children born there.

Or are you saying something else? Is there some other measure that you think needs to be taken besides the granting of citizenship rights? If it is, I wish you'd quit beating around the bush and get to saying it openly.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowDoes this mean that you have no real concerns over Christian Fundamentalism in the US and believe that it will never possibly gain any real power?

No, I'm certainly concerned with Fundamentalists of all kinds, Muslims and Christians.

You see, the real clash of civilization isn't between Islam and the west, its between religious literalist fundamentalists and moderate secularists.  THAT's the war. Bush and Bin Laden are on the same side in this war; they might be fighting each other but if either one of them were to win we'd all lose, because both are fighting for the forces of obscurantism and against humanism.

But I'd frankly be far MORE worried about the religious right and its extremists in America (or similar "christian" movements in the different countries of Europe, be it the BNP or Opus Dei), than about extremists among the muslim community.  The latter might plant bombs, and have to be watched out for that, observed carefully without allowing concerns about "racial profiling" getting in the way.
The former, however, are the ones who could really implement laws right now; you don't need some imaginary scenario of the Muslims Taking Over or Londonistan or the Caliphate of America or something like that to imagine guys like Ralph Reed and James Dobson having enormous power and influence; or to see laws being passed in communities based on nothing more than religious fanaticism and running contrary to the constitutional spirit (Kansas Board of Education, anyone?).

So the question shouldn't be whether I'm not worried about either, its WHY THE FUCK are you more worried about Muslims?

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachInteresting.  As John points out, you seem to lack concern over young Muslims saying they want Sharia law, but you are frightened out of your mind about Christians in the US. If the Christian youth said "we want biblical law," wouldn't you be out of your mind claiming more proof about their intentions?

Finally, why does it matter if they really know?  Once under Sharia law, how are they going to escape - protesting? If they find out it wasn't what they signed up for, do you think the radical elders who pulled the bait and switch are just going to let them walk?

Again, why are you and John worried about some theoretical potential threat in the future from a group that right now is far too small to cause any harm to our institutions, but not worried about a group that's VASTLY more numerous and have already demonstrated a direct interest and influence in trying to alter laws to suit their religious nonsense ideas?

I am concerned about both, and I think both can be solved by education.

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurThey're not. But I don't consider them to be especially weak to said tyranny either. To be a tyrant, you need to be in authority; most Muslims in positions of religious authority are moderates, and just about all Muslims in positions of secular authority are moderates.

I never said that they were especially weak, though I do think that their social and economic situation makes them vulnerable.  And the effort to radicalize them (or get them to go along with the radicals) is pretty strong.

I don't question that just about all Muslims in positions of secular authority are moderates.  With respect to "most Muslims in positions of religious authority are moderates", how do you define "moderate"?  Is a cleric who believes apostasy should be punished by death a "moderate", for example?

And are you talking about just the UK or all of Europe?  For example, this New York Times article (//) talks about the problems facing France:

   "Part of the problem is a dearth of domestically trained clerics to lead congregations of European-born Muslims. As a result, mosques like that in Vénissieux often have to rely on imported imams or self-proclaimed clerics who espouse fundamentalist beliefs that grate against Europe's more tolerant societies."

Yes, France has been expelling radical imams and that could help.  But they also need to do a better job of better integrating the young Muslims who are the targets of these radical clerics into French society.

Quote from: RPGPunditThen it would seem you're not arguing that we should stop immigration, but that this is a specifically European problem that could be solved by Europe extending citizenship to those people it brings in to work there, or at least to their children born there.

I think that would help a great deal, yes, as would a reduction in the discrimination that's perceived by many Muslims in at least some European countries.  You can't integrate a population that you hold at arm's length.

Quote from: RPGPunditOr are you saying something else? Is there some other measure that you think needs to be taken besides the granting of citizenship rights? If it is, I wish you'd quit beating around the bush and get to saying it openly.

I've enumerated the list of Europeans problems several times in this thread.  Reducing unemployment and discrimination, ejecting radical clerics like France is trying to do, not concentrating immigrants in housing projects on the outskirts of cities, and so on would also all help.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe historical example of rome is more of a warning against the use of "Foreign Mercenaries" in place of a regular army, than a parable about the dangers of immigration.

Fixed your typo. as they say.

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, why are you and John worried about some theoretical potential threat in the future from a group that right now is far too small to cause any harm to our institutions, but not worried about a group that's VASTLY more numerous and have already demonstrated a direct interest and influence in trying to alter laws to suit their religious nonsense ideas?

I am concerned about both, and I think both can be solved by education.

RPGPundit

Wait.  Let's go back to the beginning.  The question was whether or not the idea of Muslim immigration to Europe combined with birth rates in Europe might lead to a situation where some countries in Europe would be significantly Muslim in population was contentious.  You, apparently, are of the opinion that it is not contentious.  It is a concern that can be handled with education, but it's not contentious to believe it is possible to occur.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo the question shouldn't be whether I'm not worried about either, its WHY THE FUCK are you more worried about Muslims?

Because I agree with at least some of the agenda of the Christian Right and see plenty of evidence that the American public is effectively checking their excesses (e.g., the Kansas Board of Ed. example).  On the other hand, I don't think the moderate Muslim community has the radical elements under control.

Oh come on, Warthur?? Most Europeans don't want Turkey in the EU because of Cyprus??

For fuck's sake you're only making your argument look bad in light of John's arguments.

There's obvioius reasons that most people in the EU are wary of Turkey joining: its a muslim nation full of muslims. Its also a country that most of Europe dedicated the last 1000 years to fighting against; and I speak as a guy whose direct ancestors dedicated their careers, lives and fortunes to fighting the Turk, and were commanders at the battle of Vienna.

You can argue whether its right or wrong, whether Turkey joining the EU means that Turkey would influence the european world or the european world would influence Turkey; but in either case, its a wholly different point than the question of immigration. You're talking, in the former case, of including a predominantly muslim country of vast population into a large-scale political alliance of nations, vs. integrating small muslim minorities into predominantly secular european nations.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, why are you and John worried about some theoretical potential threat in the future from a group that right now is far too small to cause any harm to our institutions, but not worried about a group that's VASTLY more numerous and have already demonstrated a direct interest and influence in trying to alter laws to suit their religious nonsense ideas?

Because worrying about a potential threat before it becomes a real menace is how you stop them from becoming a real menace.  As for the Religious Right, beyond the areas where I actually agree with them, I see ample evidence that they lack the power you think they have.  You mention the Kansas Board of Ed. but seem to ignore the fact that the decision was wildly unpopular and overturned.  Right now, Intelligent Design and Creationism are taught in no public American schools that I know of, despite how badly many Fundamentalist Christians would like to change that.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou can argue whether its right or wrong, whether Turkey joining the EU means that Turkey would influence the european world or the european world would influence Turkey; but in either case, its a wholly different point than the question of immigration.

It's actually linked, because once Turkey joins the EU, Turkish citizens will be granted the right to move freely throughout Europe if I'm not mistaken.  Is that not correct?

Quote from: RPGPunditOh come on, Warthur?? Most Europeans don't want Turkey in the EU because of Cyprus??

For fuck's sake you're only making your argument look bad in light of John's arguments.

I don't know if Warthur meant Europeans or European governments. Most Europeans don't care I would say. However most governments do probably because of lobbying by the Greek govt. Add to that a fair degree of what appears to be Franco racism at the idea.

Quote from: John MorrowIt's actually linked, because once Turkey joins the EU, Turkish citizens will be granted the right to move freely throughout Europe if I'm not mistaken. Is that not correct?

True but then EU citizens will be able to move to Turkey. Its already happening in Bulgaria and Romania with property being bought up as second homes and retirement homes by northern europeans because prices are far cheaper than Spain or Italy the previous choices.

Quote from: John MorrowBecause worrying about a potential threat before it becomes a real menace is how you stop them from becoming a real menace.  As for the Religious Right, beyond the areas where I actually agree with them, I see ample evidence that they lack the power you think they have.  You mention the Kansas Board of Ed. but seem to ignore the fact that the decision was wildly unpopular and overturned.  Right now, Intelligent Design and Creationism are taught in no public American schools that I know of, despite how badly many Fundamentalist Christians would like to change that.

Then once more: if you are not concerned and believe that hte Religious Right, which certainly has more numbers behind it, plus the force of culture and history, is not a menace, how could you possibly conceive of a scenario where muslim extremists would be?! Its absurd.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowIt's actually linked, because once Turkey joins the EU, Turkish citizens will be granted the right to move freely throughout Europe if I'm not mistaken.  Is that not correct?

Yes, where they would become minorities wherever they went.
Again, the question of including a muslim-majority state in your international body is very different from the question of allowing/tolerating/integrating muslim minorities in your countries.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOh come on, Warthur?? Most Europeans don't want Turkey in the EU because of Cyprus??

For fuck's sake you're only making your argument look bad in light of John's arguments.

I was looking at it from a governmental viewpoint as opposed to the populace as a whole. The general populace in Europe probably think all sorts of things, and I suspect a certain number don't like the idea of Turkey joining because it's a Muslim nation. Bear in mind, however, that EU entry negotiations are pretty damn obscure to most people here; lots of folk (aside from hardcore EU fans and EU-sceptics) pay no attention to them; the reasoning behind nations' diplomatic positions at EU negotiations often have little-to-nothing to do with the feelings of the man on the street.

Sure, of the governments involved in discussing Turkey's membership of the EU - and it's the governments who decide who gets to join the club, ultimately, not the people of Europe - some have suggested that it might not be a good idea because Turkey is a Muslim country. Maybe they're sincere in that, or maybe they're just being populists. But Cyprus, the Kurds, and Turkey's human rights record are also major issues in the minds of the governments in question, even if they're not a big deal to the man on the street in London or Paris. You can be absolutely assured that Greece and Cyprus (the Greek part) are doing everything in their power to convince people not to let Turkey into the EU, and I'm pretty sure that they are making it substantially harder.

QuoteThere's obvioius reasons that most people in the EU are wary of Turkey joining: its a muslim nation full of muslims. Its also a country that most of Europe dedicated the last 1000 years to fighting against; and I speak as a guy whose direct ancestors dedicated their careers, lives and fortunes to fighting the Turk, and were commanders at the battle of Vienna.

Minor quibble: modern-day Turkey was founded by Ataturk, a secularist, who rebelled against the very Ottoman Empire that toppled Byzantium.

That said, you are absolutely correct that the wars between Europe and the Ottomans are a factor in this; that I had forgotten. On the other hand, I would argue that if the various other factors weren't present, it wouldn't be a problem: France and Germany happily sat down together to found the EU, and they'd gone to war in living memory.

Just to weigh in, late as I may be...

Quote from: WarthurIncidentally, I can't recall any time in history where an immigrant population - by which I mean a population which moves into a country and bids for citizenship under the current government, as opposed to colonists who simply turn up and set up their own government (like European colonists did pretty much all over the world) - managed to actually take over a country. You'd think, the number of times chicken littles have claimed it was about to happen, that it'd have happened at least once before now.

Later comments show you restrict yourself to the last 60 years or so, which is frankly silly, but history shows a long process of immigrants forcing out weaker populations to take their lands.

John Morrow tried to address this with Rome, but I think that was simply a misstep, since its hardly the most important topic here.

Let me see if I can handle it then with a bit more detail.

Memory fuzzy but: 4th Century AD, Saxons migrated to England, until we now consider the english 'anglo-saxons'.  Guess no one lived there before. Where did the Saxons come from? Germany.  

Going back a bit further: Japan, 3rd Century BC, the people we now call the Japanese moved out of Korean and displaced the Jomon, assimlating them eventually, and virtually exterminated the Ainu people over nearly a millenia of warfare.

Too far back for you?

America. From 1492 until Today: Native American tribes reduced to running fucking casinos and selling firecrackers on reservations, to the point where the number of 'pure blooded' Native Americans... from a massive stretch of land and hundreds of tribes, could now fit on a single 747.

Yeah. Immigrants are never a threat to the natives. :rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeMemory fuzzy but: 4th Century AD, Saxons migrated to England, until we now consider the english 'anglo-saxons'.  Guess no one lived there before. Where did the Saxons come from? Germany.

The saxons didn't "migrate"; they invaded. Its not quite the same. You can make plenty of examples of people who invaded countries and took them over. Its hard to find any of people who immigrated to a given country and took it over.

QuoteAmerica. From 1492 until Today: Native American tribes reduced to running fucking casinos and selling firecrackers on reservations, to the point where the number of 'pure blooded' Native Americans... from a massive stretch of land and hundreds of tribes, could now fit on a single 747.

Again, these would qualify as invasions rather than immigrations. Its not like the pilgrims came over and started living in the indian settlements like the indians did; no, they displaced them and by force and didn't participate in indian society in any meaningful way.

QuoteYeah. Immigrants are never a threat to the natives. :rolleyes:

Every case you mentioned was of invasions and not immigration; and in every case it was also notable that the invaders had something going for them as an advantage (usually technological) besides simply the force of numbers.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThen once more: if you are not concerned and believe that hte Religious Right, which certainly has more numbers behind it, plus the force of culture and history, is not a menace, how could you possibly conceive of a scenario where muslim extremists would be?! Its absurd.

Because I don't believe that the majority of the Religious Right is as radical as I'm sure you do.  Many of them simply want a return to how they perceived things as being 50-100 years ago.  They aren't looking for the racism and are probably looking at that period through rose-tinged glasses to one degree or another, but what they are looking for is a return to family-friendly public spaces, Christian expression in the public without lawsuits or ridicule, and schools to teach morality to children that reflect what they consider Christian values.  Opposition to abortion is also a huge part of that and is probably a big part of the reason why Democrats lost so much power.

But what you need to bear in mind to put that all into perspective is that all of those things, for the most part, existed in one form or another in the United States for at least a century without it turning into a theocracy.  The public spaces were more family friendly, there was Christian expression in public without ridicule, children said prayers in school and held Christmas plays, and children weren't taught about sex in schools.  And abortion was illegal in every state, even though the laws were liberalized in 4 states before Roe v. Wade.  Sure, things weren't perfect (the racism of the period was shameful) but in many ways, it was better than today, especially for parents with children.  ADDED:  And with the exception of particularly awful racial violence in some places and periods during that time, life in America was not comparable to life on Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, nor modern Iran or Saudi Arabia for that matter.  Given the choice, I think most American women would rather live in 1930s or 1950s America than Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, modern Iran, or modern Saudi Arabia.

So, basically, America has already been pretty much the way the Religious Right wants it to be, for decades, and didn't turn into a theocracy or fall apart.  Perhaps you think that would all be a step backwards but they see a lot of the changes since then as a step backward, and would like things to be more like the way they once were.  And if you want to raise the specter of racism, I'd be happy to talk about mixed-race Evangelical congregations and about the overt segregation in progressive Democrat states like New Jersey and Vermont.  That's not what most on the Religious Right are looking for at all.

Finally, I'd like to add that in some ways, Muslim extremists are already exercising more power than Christian Fundamentalists, at least over free speech and the free exchange of ideas.  How many American papers were willing to publish the drawings of Muhammad, most of them relatively benign, that caused such an uproar in Europe to illustrate the controversy?  Weren't the creators of South Park prohibited from showing Muhammad in an episode that mercilessly mocks Jesus?  Didn't Newsweek yank an article off of their website about old alternate manuscripts of the Quran found in the Sanaa mosque in Yemen after complaints by Muslim groups?  Haven't authors like Rushdie been given death threats and don't authors like ibn Warraq have to publish anonymously, out of fear of being killed?  Wasn't Theo van Gogh slaughtered on the streets of Amsterdam for his movie critical of Islam?  

I'm not talking about Muslim countries but about the West -- Europe and the United States.  Can you think of any comparable acts perpetrated by Christian Fundamentalists, simply for insulting Jesus or questioning Christianity?  Have the boycotts against movies like the Last Temptation of Christ really stopped people from seeing them or, more importantly, stopped them from being made?  Do the creators of Southpark need 7/24 bodyguards to protect them from Christians outraged over their mocking of Jesus?  

And given how much you claim to love free speech, I'm surprised that you don't have more of a problem with that.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe saxons didn't "migrate"; they invaded. Its not quite the same. You can make plenty of examples of people who invaded countries and took them over. Its hard to find any of people who immigrated to a given country and took it over.

That's because, for much of history, the line between immigration and invasion was fairly thin.  Most people didn't want outsiders on their turf and the idea of welcoming immigrants with open arms, though it happened from time to time throughout history, doesn't seem to be the norm.

And while I'm sure it's not the primary objective of most Muslim immigrants in Europe or most Mexican immigrants in the United States, there are extremist activists in both groups that do preach immigration as invasion and conquest.  Even if they are relatively powerless and fringe, they certainly aren't helping things.

Quote from: SpikeMemory fuzzy but: 4th Century AD, Saxons migrated to England, until we now consider the english 'anglo-saxons'.  Guess no one lived there before. Where did the Saxons come from? Germany.

Not even slightly analagous. The Saxons came over in their own tribes, with their own kings, invaded and took the land from the local Romano-British Celts. They did not come along, said "Oh, hey guys, can we set up shop here? We're totally cool to live under your leaders and abide by your laws, we just want to live here," and lived peaceful lives trying to integrate into the community. I would suggest that the Japan example is the same, as is the Americas.

That's not immigration; however you cut it, that's colonisation at best, invasion at worst. When you bring your people and culture to a foreign land but agree to abide by its laws, that's immigration. When you package up your laws and government and try to impose them there, that's colonisation and invasion.

See the difference?

Quote from: John MorrowBecause I don't believe that the majority of the Religious Right is as radical as I'm sure you do.  Many of them simply want a return to how they perceived things as being 50-100 years ago.  They aren't looking for the racism and are probably looking at that period through rose-tinged glasses to one degree or another, but what they are looking for is a return to family-friendly public spaces, Christian expression in the public without lawsuits or ridicule, and schools to teach morality to children that reflect what they consider Christian values.  Opposition to abortion is also a huge part of that and is probably a big part of the reason why Democrats lost so much power.

But what you need to bear in mind to put that all into perspective is that all of those things, for the most part, existed in one form or another in the United States for at least a century without it turning into a theocracy.  The public spaces were more family friendly, there was Christian expression in public without ridicule, children said prayers in school and held Christmas plays, and children weren't taught about sex in schools.  And abortion was illegal in every state, even though the laws were liberalized in 4 states before Roe v. Wade.  Sure, things weren't perfect (the racism of the period was shameful) but in many ways, it was better than today, especially for parents with children.  ADDED:  And with the exception of particularly awful racial violence in some places and periods during that time, life in America was not comparable to life on Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, nor modern Iran or Saudi Arabia for that matter.  Given the choice, I think most American women would rather live in 1930s or 1950s America than Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, modern Iran, or modern Saudi Arabia.

So, basically, America has already been pretty much the way the Religious Right wants it to be, for decades, and didn't turn into a theocracy or fall apart.  Perhaps you think that would all be a step backwards but they see a lot of the changes since then as a step backward, and would like things to be more like the way they once were.  And if you want to raise the specter of racism, I'd be happy to talk about mixed-race Evangelical congregations and about the overt segregation in progressive Democrat states like New Jersey and Vermont.  That's not what most on the Religious Right are looking for at all.

Ah yes, the "Good Old Days" theory.  Those glasses aren't just rose-colored, they're solid red.

The fact is, life in the 1950's was most certainly not like a Leave it to Beaver episode.

First, let's talk race relations.  If you weren't white, you were a second-class citizen.  Period.  Particularly in the south, where not only were you treated poorly, but you had to worry about white people lynching you just because they had a bad day and felt like blowing off some steam.

If you were a woman, you were also a second-class citizen.  Domestic abuse was considered normal behavior and your husband effectively owned you.  Sexual harrassment was considered standard practice if you were able to get a job.  You had no say over what to do with your own body with regards to pregnancy.  And if you were young and got pregnant, you were practically guaranteed to be sent away and more-or-less disowned by your family (as opposed to the even older days, when women would get married off at age 14 to some guy in his 20's or older).    Sure, it's not as bad as Afghanistan or Iran or whatever - but it's still terrible.

If you weren't Christian, you were practically a second-class citizen.  You and your family would be forced to suffer through the constant assailment of Christian propoganda at school or work.  You would be discriminated against, and might have trouble getting a job or even finding a place to live.  And your kids would actively be discriminated against at school or be forced to participate in activities that went against their core religious beliefs.

If you were gay, you weren't just a second-class citizen, but considered to be mentally insane.  People would either want to lock you up and "treat" you, lock you up for having illegal sex, or just beat you to death on the street for fun.  And certainly the police didn't care.  They'd put more effort into trying to solve the lynching of a black man than they would a gay man (which is to say, none at all).

If you were young, you were 100% the property of your parents.  They could do whatever they wanted to you.  Verbal abuse, physical abuse, even sexual abuse - no one is going to interfere.  And it doesn't even have to be your actual parents, every other adult in the world has the right to pretty much do whatever they want to you, too.  Unless your parents actually object.

If you were poor, that was just too fucking bad.  If you were lucky enough, you got to break your fucking back working at a dead end job for the rest of your life.  Don't get sick, though, 'cause there's no health plan.  And watch out for all the hazards at work - because there's no reason for the company to make the place safe.  If you weren't lucky, you ended up on skid row were you and your family can starve and live on the streets.

And whatever you do, don't be communist.  Or know any communists.  Or even look like you might be communist or know a communist.  Or even disagree with the methods of finding the communists.  Those pinko bastards are everywhere, and we should try and expose them all so their lives can be ruined and/or have them killed (even if we don't have much in the way of hard evidence).

But yeah, if you were an older white rich pro-Democracy Christian male, those days fucking rocked.  Everyone else was pretty much your indentured servant, and if you had a stressful day at work, you had your choice of how to release your tension - you could beat your wife, your kids, some black guy, a gay guy, or a suspected commie pinko.

Oddly enough, the 50's had pretty much the same problems we do today.  Things like school violence, gangs, teen sex, drug use, venereal diseases, teen pregnancy, etc - they were all there.  Actually, those all go back to the 19th century.  There were no real "good old days"  - because despite the problems we have today, we're living in them.

Quote from: John MorrowFinally, I'd like to add that in some ways, Muslim extremists are already exercising more power than Christian Fundamentalists, at least over free speech and the free exchange of ideas.  How many American papers were willing to publish the drawings of Muhammad, most of them relatively benign, that caused such an uproar in Europe to illustrate the controversy?  Weren't the creators of South Park prohibited from showing Muhammad in an episode that mercilessly mocks Jesus?  Didn't Newsweek yank an article off of their website about old alternate manuscripts of the Quran found in the Sanaa mosque in Yemen after complaints by Muslim groups?  Haven't authors like Rushdie been given death threats and don't authors like ibn Warraq have to publish anonymously, out of fear of being killed?  Wasn't Theo van Gogh slaughtered on the streets of Amsterdam for his movie critical of Islam?  

I'm not talking about Muslim countries but about the West -- Europe and the United States.  Can you think of any comparable acts perpetrated by Christian Fundamentalists, simply for insulting Jesus or questioning Christianity?  Have the boycotts against movies like the Last Temptation of Christ really stopped people from seeing them or, more importantly, stopped them from being made?  Do the creators of Southpark need 7/24 bodyguards to protect them from Christians outraged over their mocking of Jesus?  

And given how much you claim to love free speech, I'm surprised that you don't have more of a problem with that.

Uh, how about the "Christians" who advocate bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors?  Does that count?  Or how about the ones advocating killing gay people?

Maybe the reason that the radical Christians aren't going after the people who mock Jesus, yet, is they want to be sure to kill off everyone involved in abortions or anal sex first (in the Muslim countries, they've already stoned all those people to death, so they have more time to focus on blasphemy).

I actually do agree somewhat with what you are saying, though.  Muslim religious nuts are somewhat worse than Christian religious nuts.  But at least they are further away from me and don't impact my daily life.  And if they become the majority in 2150 or whatever, it really won't matter to me because I'll be long dead by then.  I'm worried about the forces effecting me today, and that's the nut job evangelicals.

Quote from: jgantsAh yes, the "Good Old Days" theory.  Those glasses aren't just rose-colored, they're solid red.

And yours are painted black.

Quote from: jgantsThe fact is, life in the 1950's was most certainly not like a Leave it to Beaver episode.

Of course real life is never as clean as a TV show but where did you get your information about the 1950s?

Quote from: jgantsFirst, let's talk race relations.  If you weren't white, you were a second-class citizen.  Period.  Particularly in the south, where not only were you treated poorly, but you had to worry about white people lynching you just because they had a bad day and felt like blowing off some steam.

I've acknowledged that race relations were a problem.  And while there has been great progress in many areas of race relations, things have also gone backward in other areas. (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3864)  And if you think that discrimination and segregation is dead and that some things haven't gotten worse for blacks, then I think you have a Leave it to Beaver view of the modern world.  

Quote from: jgantsIf you were a woman, you were also a second-class citizen.  Domestic abuse was considered normal behavior and your husband effectively owned you.  Sexual harrassment was considered standard practice if you were able to get a job.

Was there sexual discrimination?  Sure.  And there has been some good progress there, too.  But upon what do you base your claims that domestic abuse was considered normal (not in my family or in any family I know of from that period, and there are certainly others with experiences far different than the one you paint (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell040203.asp)) and what kind of sexual harassment was "standard practice"?  Do you really think that men had no love or compassion for their wives, sisters, and daughters until the 1960s and that there were no gentlemen in the 1950s?

Quote from: jgantsYou had no say over what to do with your own body with regards to pregnancy.  And if you were young and got pregnant, you were practically guaranteed to be sent away and more-or-less disowned by your family (as opposed to the even older days, when women would get married off at age 14 to some guy in his 20's or older).    Sure, it's not as bad as Afghanistan or Iran or whatever - but it's still terrible.

Instead, we now have young women who are expected to perform for their boyfriends or they think their is something wrong with them, even if they feel guilty or depressed afterward, leading to high STD rates and a host of psychological problems (but we aren't allowed to talk about that (http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110009381)).  Yes, being expected to be unpaid whores for guys who want hook-ups rather that commitment is a big step up, right?  And you should visit a fertility clinic sometimes and see how happy all those women who waited until their late 30s to get married and start a family are when they find out that they can no longer have children.

Quote from: jgantsIf you weren't Christian, you were practically a second-class citizen.  You and your family would be forced to suffer through the constant assailment of Christian propoganda at school or work.  You would be discriminated against, and might have trouble getting a job or even finding a place to live.  And your kids would actively be discriminated against at school or be forced to participate in activities that went against their core religious beliefs.

It depends on where you lived and where you wanted to work.  There were also fields that Christians could have trouble entering and the issue was often more one of ethnicity than religion (remember, in 1960, John F. Kennedy's Catholicism was still an issue).  

As for the "propaganda" , my experience is that it doesn't bother many people nearly as much as you assume it does.  If it did, Muslim and Hindu parents wouldn't send their children to Catholic schools today, yet they do.  One of my Muslim friends celebrated Christmas as a child -- as an economic holiday.  A Jewish friend's family video taped the Yule Log program because they loved Christmas music but felt guilty about buying it.  I lived in Japan near a Shinto shrine and they had Shinto and Buddhist festivals on the streets.  I never considered it "propaganda" or an affront to my Christianity.

Quote from: jgantsIf you were gay, you weren't just a second-class citizen, but considered to be mentally insane.  People would either want to lock you up and "treat" you, lock you up for having illegal sex, or just beat you to death on the street for fun.  And certainly the police didn't care.  They'd put more effort into trying to solve the lynching of a black man than they would a gay man (which is to say, none at all).

How many gays were beaten to death on the street for fun in the 1950s?  Names?  Places?

I'm going to pass on any other analysis of this topic because it seems to be such a hot-button issue these days except to say that I think that the improvements in the way that gays are treated in general has been good.

Quote from: jgantsIf you were young, you were 100% the property of your parents.  They could do whatever they wanted to you.  Verbal abuse, physical abuse, even sexual abuse - no one is going to interfere.  And it doesn't even have to be your actual parents, every other adult in the world has the right to pretty much do whatever they want to you, too.  Unless your parents actually object.

I presume this means that you think that love and compassion for children was also invented in the 1960s?  Were there abusive parents?  Sure.  And there are still abusive parents.  Do you have any evidence that real abuse was more prevalent?

Quote from: jgantsIf you were poor, that was just too fucking bad.  If you were lucky enough, you got to break your fucking back working at a dead end job for the rest of your life.  Don't get sick, though, 'cause there's no health plan.  And watch out for all the hazards at work - because there's no reason for the company to make the place safe.  If you weren't lucky, you ended up on skid row were you and your family can starve and live on the streets.

And the skid rows were just full of homeless families during the 1950s, right?  Did you ever hear of charitable organizations?  

Quote from: jgantsAnd whatever you do, don't be communist.  Or know any communists.  Or even look like you might be communist or know a communist.  Or even disagree with the methods of finding the communists.  Those pinko bastards are everywhere, and we should try and expose them all so their lives can be ruined and/or have them killed (even if we don't have much in the way of hard evidence).

Maybe that's because the American communist groups were often tied to the Soviet Union and quite a few communists actually did, gasp, leak secrets to the Soviet Union?  And maybe the reason why some communists suffered so much is that they tried to lie about their affiliations instead of admitting them?

Quote from: jgantsBut yeah, if you were an older white rich pro-Democracy Christian male, those days fucking rocked.  Everyone else was pretty much your indentured servant, and if you had a stressful day at work, you had your choice of how to release your tension - you could beat your wife, your kids, some black guy, a gay guy, or a suspected commie pinko.

That's because older white rich pro-Democracy Christian male love nothing more than to kick the crap out of innocent people, right?  

Quote from: jgantsOddly enough, the 50's had pretty much the same problems we do today.

The old, "It as always just as bad as it is today," argument.

Quote from: jgantsThings like school violence, gangs, teen sex, drug use, venereal diseases, teen pregnancy, etc - they were all there.

Have you actually looked at the numbers or are you just guessing here?

Quote from: jgantsActually, those all go back to the 19th century.  There were no real "good old days"  - because despite the problems we have today, we're living in them.

What does that mean?

Quote from: jgantsUh, how about the "Christians" who advocate bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors?  Does that count?  Or how about the ones advocating killing gay people?

How many people have been killed in clinic bombings or doctor shootings?  How do the mainstream Christian and pro-life organizations react to such activities?

How many Christians are advocating the killing of gays and how many gays have been killed by them?  How do the mainstream Christian organizations, even Fundamentalist Christian ones, react to such talk?

Quote from: jgantsMaybe the reason that the radical Christians aren't going after the people who mock Jesus, yet, is they want to be sure to kill off everyone involved in abortions or anal sex first (in the Muslim countries, they've already stoned all those people to death, so they have more time to focus on blasphemy).

I was wondering if you were just making this up as you go.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Quote from: jgantsI actually do agree somewhat with what you are saying, though.  Muslim religious nuts are somewhat worse than Christian religious nuts.  But at least they are further away from me and don't impact my daily life.  And if they become the majority in 2150 or whatever, it really won't matter to me because I'll be long dead by then.  I'm worried about the forces effecting me today, and that's the nut job evangelicals.

So you only really care about discrimination, abuse, and so on when it has an impact on you personally?