Col. Andrew Bacevich on Moyers

[Sundance]

Col Bacevich is on Bill Moyers as I type.

He has been noted in other threads here in Tailgater
and I have not read any of his works.

But after listening to him I am going to order a couple
of his works. Especially "THE LIMITS OF POWER: THE END
OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM."

What and insightful man.... eloquent, and to the point.

Such relevance when a former Col. of the US Army,
a father who lost a son in Iraq, encapsulates the
profound error of our incursion.

[Sundance]

here's a bit of background........

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html

Wish he was running for President!!

And an excerpt...

"'I've been troubled by the course of U.S. foreign policy for a long, long time.
And I wrote the book in order to sort out my own thinking about where our basic
problems lay. And I really reached the conclusion that our biggest problems are within.

I think there's a tendency in the part of policy makers — and probably a tendency
in the part of many Americans — to think that the problems we face are problems
that are out there somewhere beyond our borders, and that if we can fix those
problems, then we'll be able to continue the American way of life as it has long existed.
I think it's fundamentally wrong. Our major problems are here at home."

[JPK1NH]

Personally I believe that the assumption portrayed by some that the US's problems are wholly Internal is pure fancy....particularly in an ever increasingly Global World.

I would urge anyone that disagrees to make a list of 10 countries that they think have no Internal "Issues" of their own.

I would go as far as saying that one of our largest problems throughout time is our willingness to freely assist (particularly financially) countries around the globe and have done so for the better part of a century.

Had we not forgiven the Lend Lease, Marshall Plan and the billions we've given to Africa and others over the years we would likely have no national debt....the one thing that is like a boat anchor on this country.

Countries have interests, always have and always will.....to suggest that we should in some way strive to be more Isolationist is IMHO idiotic.

[Sundance]

...to suggest that we should in some way strive to be more Isolationist is IMHO idiotic.

Who it the heck is suggesting isolationism?? You????
That is a quantum leap in logic (or rather illogic)

[Barry Digman]

Personally I believe that the assumption portrayed by some that the US's problems are wholly Internal is pure fancy....particularly in an ever increasingly Global World.




Look at what he actually said....

"And I really reached the conclusion that our biggest problems are within."


He didn't say "wholly", he said "biggest". That makes a HUGE difference in how one interprets his words, and it illustrates the difficulty in having a conversation these days that involves that stupid war in Iraq. Those who keep defending the war immediately shift into some sort of cognatively dissonant state, and when someone says something like "biggest", they hear "wholly". It makes it really difficult to carry on the discussion.

The same thing keeps happening with the use of the buzzword "isolationist". Every time someone states that we need to heed the advice of our founding fathers when it comes to foreign entanglements, the red-white-and-blue crowd jumps up and starts shouting "ISOLATIONISM". Well, no one is calling for isolationism. They are asking that the US not continue to tear around the world sticking their noses in other peoples business, and that they be very careful about where and when they send their warriors. Colonel Bacevich sounds like he might be one of them. I'll have to read his work.

And note that the war in Iraq is not over, and the US has not won.

[mike haney]

"The same thing keeps happening with the use of the buzzword "isolationist" they continue because it has worked so well with "liberal" any move toward a more compassionate society is derided as liberalism, to the point that to call someone a "liberal" is a deep insult.

[George Fergusson]

Personally I believe that the assumption portrayed by some that the US's problems are wholly Internal is pure fancy....particularly in an ever increasingly Global World.

I would urge anyone that disagrees to make a list of 10 countries that they think have no Internal "Issues" of their own.

Well now that's bogus, what is such a list supposed to prove? Proves nothing. Thanks for playing.

Who it the heck is suggesting isolationism?? You????
That is a quantum leap in logic (or rather illogic)

It's a knee-jerk reaction :)

[Sundance]

"The same thing keeps happening with the use of the buzzword "isolationist" they continue because it has worked so well with "liberal" any move toward a more compassionate society is derided as liberalism, to the point that to call someone a "liberal" is a deep insult.


Not to this hombre......... I wear it proudly, and always, always
consider the source of silly insults. They do nothing for having
any kind of intelligent discourse.

[Sundance]

Look at what he actually said....

As usual you have said it well. I look forward to getting his
latest work.

If you didn't see the interview, I think it can be seen on the
Moyer's site. I'd watch it again, but the ol' dial up blues
prevent me.

[JPK1NH]

Look at what he actually said....

"And I really reached the conclusion that our biggest problems are within."


He didn't say "wholly", he said "biggest". That makes a HUGE difference in how one interprets his words, and it illustrates the difficulty in having a conversation these days that involves that stupid war in Iraq. Those who keep defending the war immediately shift into some sort of cognatively dissonant state, and when someone says something like "biggest", they hear "wholly". It makes it really difficult to carry on the discussion.

The same thing keeps happening with the use of the buzzword "isolationist". Every time someone states that we need to heed the advice of our founding fathers when it comes to foreign entanglements, the red-white-and-blue crowd jumps up and starts shouting "ISOLATIONISM". Well, no one is calling for isolationism. They are asking that the US not continue to tear around the world sticking their noses in other peoples business, and that they be very careful about where and when they send their warriors. Colonel Bacevich sounds like he might be one of them. I'll have to read his work.

I think its a good exercise to identify and work on the internal issue but to say the the majority of our issues are internal is folly in my opinion.

Some of our biggest problems are purely or largely external in nature

1. Illegal Aliens/Porous Border.

2. Trillions of Dollars that we have GIVEN away with no expectation of repayment...all now borrowed on the backs of our yet to be born grandchildren.....not to mention the fact that Obama's Folly is one that would commit the US Taxpayers to an additional $850 BILLION or approx $2500 of additional taxes for each and every US Citizen.....this bill alone would increase the National Debt approx 10% by itself! And people are REALLY Thinking About Electing Obama? Pahlease!

3. Re-emergence of Russia and recent/ongoing efforts to re-conquer former territories while squashing political opposition. Claiming property rights of sea floor for Oil Exploration.

4. Foreign Energy Dependence.

And note that the war in Iraq is not over, and the US has not won.

That seems to be a matter of opinion....and one that has generated many tens of pages of discussion here.

I'm of the opinion that the war in Iraq is for all intensive purposes over provided we don't lose our resolve and allow security to deteriorate before the Iraqi's can settle things and fill the void so we can really get out.

[JPK1NH]

"The same thing keeps happening with the use of the buzzword "isolationist" they continue because it has worked so well with "liberal" any move toward a more compassionate society is derided as liberalism, to the point that to call someone a "liberal" is a deep insult.

Mike, lets call it what it is.

Liberalism is Socialism plain and simple.

Its more government, more regulations, consolidation of power in the Federal Gov and reduction of States Rights and Power and its certainly a decrease in Independence, Freedom and Self Determination.

Lets not forget the abdication of Personal Responsibility as well.

[JPK1NH]

Well now that's bogus, what is such a list supposed to prove? Proves nothing. Thanks for playing.



It's a knee-jerk reaction :)

Actually its a strategy of the Left to get the country to take its eye off the ball and lose opportunities to prevent very bad things from happenening elsewhere like Iran and Nukes, Nuclear North Korea, Expansion of Russia into former countries it occupied like Georgia, Estonia etc.

etc etc etc

[Barry Digman]

I think its a good exercise to identify and work on the internal issue but to say the the majority of our issues are internal is folly in my opinion.




Again, he didn't say the "majority" of our problems are internal, he said the "biggest" problems are internal.

[JPK1NH]

Again, he didn't say the "majority" of our problems are internal, he said the "biggest" problems are internal.

Splitting hairs.....minor Semantics....

Its little more than a distraction as a posted previously.

[Sundance]

Again, he didn't say the "majority" of our problems are internal, he said the "biggest" problems are internal.

Why read and understand what Bacevich is saying when it
may not allow you to twist the subject into something other
than the reality it is? A true politician JPK, you should run.

[JPK1NH]

Why read and understand what Bacevich is saying when it
may not allow you to twist the subject into something other
than the reality it is? A true politician JPK, you should run.

Sundance, it has little to do with Politics and lots to do with Philosophical Approach to life.

Lets boil it down to the basics....I believe in Personal Responsibility and most of your posts make you sound like you don't so much.

I believe that Government has its place and that its currently standing in the way of forward progress on most fronts

You believe that Government should be given more control, power and oversight.

I'm a small l libertarian/classic conservative on most issues

Your posts make you sound like a Liberal/Socialist.

Am I off base here?

[Sundance]

I believe in Personal Responsibility and Social
Responsibility.

I see "the government" as us, you and me. Not
some other entity. Is it out of control, for sure.
Read Bacevich, so does he.

I see that the control you speak of is subjective.
A huge military is government out of control.

I am politically a mutt, libertarian, economic conservative,
social liberal, environmentalist, but mainly American.

Most folks have loads of differences.

[JPK1NH]

I believe in Personal Responsibility and Social
Responsibility.

I see "the government" as us, you and me. Not
some other entity. Is it out of control, for sure.
Read Bacevich, so does he.

I see that the control you speak of is subjective.
A huge military is government out of control.

I am politically a mutt, libertarian, economic conservative,
social liberal, environmentalist, but mainly American.

Most folks have loads of differences.

Please explain your idea of "Social Responsibility" and if you think that is something that the Government should be responsible for via confiscatory taxation and arbitrary distribution or if that should be the domain of charities and the donations of individuals.

I'd also like to hear how you believe that the Socialist Dems will reduce the Out of Control Gov when the central tenets of their platform is expansion of gov.

[Barry Digman]

Splitting hairs.....minor Semantics....

Its little more than a distraction as a posted previously.


Then you won't mind quoting folks accurately in the future, right?

[JPK1NH]

Then you won't mind quoting folks accurately in the future, right?

No more or less than anyone else here Barry.

As I've pointed out before this is little more than a distraction from the issues that exist out there that are time sensitive.

[John F]

I'm a small l libertarian/classic conservative

You're confused. Libertarianism (yeah, of the small l varity) is classical liberalism. Classical conservatism is actually called aristocratic conservatism and that's all about oligarchy.

It's "intents and purposes".

Liberalism is not socialism. You may be arguing that the democrat party promotes a socialist agenda, but saying that liberalism is socialism shows that you don't know what liberalism or socialism is.

There is no border problem. Not if you really are a libertarian. To me, people that argue that there is a border issue are:

Afraid of terrorism and believe that a big fence will save us.
Are socialist's arguing to protect the welfare state we've built.
Have some racial issue.
Why is it that anyone that disagrees with you has some affiliation with the "socialist Dems"?

There was more but that post doesn't show up on this screen so I'll let it go.

[Barry Digman]

I'm of the opinion that the war in Iraq is for all intensive purposes ...


The phrase is "for all intents and purposes", not "for all intensive purposes".

[JPK1NH]

You're confused. Libertarianism (yeah, of the small l varity) is classical liberalism. Classical conservatism is actually called aristocratic conservatism and that's all about oligarchy.

Define it any way you want John I really don't care.

I'm for Small Gov, Personal Reponsibility, Personal Freedom, less regulation....the list goes on but is pretty darn consistent with those principles which ARE consistent with small l libertarian/classic conservative principles.



It's "intents and purposes".

Liberalism is not socialism. You may be arguing that the democrat party promotes a socialist agenda, but saying that liberalism is socialism shows that you don't know what liberalism or socialism is.

Modern Liberalism very much advocates Socialism...just uses different labels...

Ex: a few Liberal Dems recently vocally advocated for the gov to assume control of the oil industry....that is Socialism plain and simple.

Ex: BHO recently advocating for Economic Justice......just another phrase for Wealth Redistribution.

There is no border problem. Not if you really are a libertarian. To me, people that argue that there is a border issue are:

Afraid of terrorism and believe that a big fence will save us.
Are socialist's arguing to protect the welfare state we've built.
Have some racial issue.

One of the most fundamental principles/functions of a sovereign nation is its control/ability to control its borders.

Its clear to me and should be to most that we have a huge problem.

Not to mention the fact that the same Illegal Aliens are forging docs and falsifying SS#'s and the legitimate citizens associated with those ID's are being forced to pay as a result.


Why is it that anyone that disagrees with you has some affiliation with the "socialist Dems"?


Thats a false statement.

I disagree with you and galaxy on a regular basis but I rarely hear either of you advocate Socialist Principles

John, if it makes you happy to be able to better understand my position the definition below tempered with my strong belief in the scope of gov outlined in the Constitution and clearly intended in the writings of our founding fathers pretty well sums up my feelings on the issue.

I clearly believe in Government....just not the bloated, excessive scope that we're now saddled with that is screwing our society and economy....I'm not completely against taxation to support an appropriate scope of Gov....but taxation is easily 5 time higher than it should be. I don't personally advocate the use of drugs but hey...its your body and your choice...personally I choose not to but that should be a personal decision not a Gov one...

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: libertarianism

Political philosophy that stresses personal liberty. Libertarians believe that individuals should have complete freedom of action, provided their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others. Libertarianism's distrust of government is rooted in 19th-century anarchism. Typical libertarians oppose not only the income tax and other government impositions but also programs seen by many as beneficial, such as social security and the postal service. In the U.S. their views often crosscut traditional party boundaries (e.g., libertarians oppose gun control, as do most Republicans, but support the legalization of prohibited drugs, as do some liberal Democrats). Among the thinkers embraced by libertarians are Henry David Thoreau and Ayn Rand.

For more information on libertarianism, visit Britannica.com.

[JPK1NH]

The phrase is "for all intents and purposes", not "for all intensive purposes".

Spell check ain't perfect.

[John F]

Define it any way you want John I really don't care...

I think you are missing my point. Language is all we've got to express our ideas. Thought transfer just doesn't work. (Well, not for me at either end of the transfer.)

Some of us may believe you have good things to say, it's just that you are showing your immaturity in intellectual discussion by allowing your speech and writing to be polluted by inaccurate phraseology and semantics. You should care. You have passion and it is wasted if not understood.

Semantics matter.

By the way, the britannica definition is a bit misleading as it does not mention that libertarianism's root is liberalism (the real liberalism) and those libertarians that are anarchist, or anarcho-capitalist, need the ideas of liberalism as the apriori foundation of their philosophy.

A nation has the right to defend its border. We do not need a fence to do so. Control? Sure, in the interest of defense. I do not see any reason to put up a fence. Your argument "forging docs and falsifying SS#'s and the legitimate citizens associated with those ID's are being forced to pay as a result" is not just a problem with illegal aliens. Citizens do this as well. Much of what I hear concerning border issues boils down to "these people come here and take advantage of the system we pay for". To me, the problem is systemic, not border.

I am interested in hearing about the "Its clear to me and should be to most that we have a huge problem." huge problem.

And, semantics matter.

[Galaxy]

You're confused. Libertarianism (yeah, of the small l varity) is classical liberalism. Classical conservatism is actually called aristocratic conservatism and that's all about oligarchy.
Actually JohnF, I believe you are the one who is confused or maybe trying to mislead folks to think JPK1NH is an oligarchist (which, by the way some libertarians are, ).

There is no "classical conservatism" The accepted schools of conservatism are, Cultural conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_conservatism), Liberal conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism), Libertarian conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism). Social conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism), National conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_conservatism). Neoconservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism) and Paleoconservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism).


Semantics matter.


And, semantics matter. I agree. Let's don't use terms like "classical conservative" that mean nothing.

[John F]

Actually JohnF, I believe you are the one who is confused or maybe trying to mislead folks to think JPK1NH is an oligarchist (which, by the way some libertarians are, ).

I wasn't trying to lead or mislead anyone into thinking that JPK is anything. And I don't think I am confused. I assumed that JPK was using "classic conservatism" as a way to say "conservative as it was defined" and showing that the root conservatism, that is aristocratic conservatism, does not really fit with what he said.

Why would I want to mislead folks on what JPK believes?

From your list we can choose libertarian conservatism to best match what I think he is really saying. But it is important to understand that at the root, libertarianism is liberalism, not conservatism.

It all gets mixed up when we throw in the left/right stuff. Those libertarians that are anarchists are consider the left (I guess because it represents most free?) and those that are minarchists are considered right (again, I guess because it represents most tyrannical?) and since left somehow became shorthand for liberal and right is shorthand for conservative we need to tag libertarianism with liberal and conservative.

And which libertarians are oligarchists? That's a new one for me.

I agree. Let's don't use terms like "classical conservative" that mean nothing.

Well, that was my point, with the "here's a little information as I know it" twist thrown in.

[sqkcrk]

No more or less than anyone else here Barry.

As I've pointed out before this is little more than a distraction from the issues that exist out there that are time sensitive.

No it's not. Your big toe may be the biggest toe on your foot, but it's not the majority of your foot.

One thing that I would like to point out is that internal problems should be easier to fix than external problems. It may not be as much fun as blowing something up in a forgien country. But self control should be better for us and easier than trying to control other people and circumstances.

[Galaxy]

And which libertarians are oligarchists? That's a new one for me.
Have you heard of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe)? Hoppe is currently Professor of Economics at University of Nevada, Las Vegas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNLV), a Distinguished Fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute), and, until December, 2004, the editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Libertarian_Studies). He is a libertarian associated (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe-arch.html) with Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, and the Mises Institute, which appears to be the intellectual home of Ron Paul and others I will not name. Here are some of the beliefs of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe):


Following in the tradition of Murray Rothbard, Hoppe has analyzed the behavior of government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) using the tools of Austrian-economic theory. Defining a government as "a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation" and assuming no more than self-interest on the part of government officials, he predicts that these government officials will use their monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) privileges to maximize their own wealth and power. Hoppe argues that there is a high degree of correlation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation) between these theoretical predictions and historical data.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]

In Democracy: The God That Failed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed), Hoppe contrasts and compares dynastical monarchies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchies) with democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic) republics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics). In his view, a dynastical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynastical) monarch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch) (king) is like the "owner" of a country, because it is passed on from generation to generation, whereas an elected president is like a "temporary caretaker" or "renter". Both the king and the president have an incentive to exploit the current use of the country for their own benefit. However, the king also has a counterbalancing interest in maintaining the long-term capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital) value of the nation, just as the owner of a house has an interest in maintaining its capital value (unlike a renter). Being temporary, democratically elected officials have every incentive to plunder the wealth of productive citizens as fast as possible.

In June 2005, Hoppe gave an interview in the German newspaper Junge Freiheit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junge_Freiheit), in which he characterized monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy) as a lesser evil than democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy), calling the latter mob rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule) and saying, "Liberty instead of democracy!" In the interview Hoppe also condemned the French revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution) as belonging in "the same category of vile revolutions as well as the Bolshevik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik) revolution and the Nazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi) revolution," because the French revolution led to "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War." There are some strange ideas in Libertarianism! Of course, all libertarians do not ascribe to those ideas.

[John F]

Have you heard of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe)?

Yeah. I've read some of his stuff and listened to some of his lectures. He's not an oligarchist. Where do you get that?

Let's see, some of the things he says:

Fortunately, the ideas of individual liberty, private property, freedom of contract and association, personal responsibility and liability, and government power as the primary enemy of liberty and property, will not die out as long as there is a human race, simply because they are true and the truth supports itself.

Or how about:
Market interventions will inevitably cause more of the problems they are supposed to cure, which leads to more and more controls and regulations until we finally reach full-blown socialism. If the current trend continues, it can safely be predicted that the democratic welfare state of the West will eventually collapse as did the "people's republics" of the East in the late 1980s. For decades, real incomes in the West have stagnated or even fallen. Government debt and the cost of the "social insurance" schemes have brought on the prospect of an economic meltdown. At the same time, social conflict has risen to dangerous heights.

Perhaps one will have to wait for an economic collapse before the current statist trend changes. But even in the case of a collapse, something else is necessary. A breakdown would not automatically result in a roll-back of the State. Matters could become worse.


From what I see, he appears to be an anarchist.

(*If you want, I can give you links.)

[John F]

There are some strange ideas in Libertarianism! Of course, all libertarians do not ascribe to those ideas.

Oh yeah, I meant to ask:

Be specific. Which idea(s) seem strange to you?

[Galaxy]

Oh yeah, I meant to ask:

Be specific. Which idea(s) seem strange to you? How about this one?

In June 2005, Hoppe gave an interview in the German newspaper Junge Freiheit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junge_Freiheit), in which he characterized monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy) as a lesser evil than democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy), calling the latter mob rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule).

[Sundance]

Holly hijacked thread!!!

Seems every one devolves..............

[John F]

How about this one?

In June 2005, Hoppe gave an interview in the German newspaper Junge Freiheit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junge_Freiheit), in which he characterized monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy) as a lesser evil than democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy), calling the latter mob rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule).

You disagree? Do you understand his point? There are centuries of societies that support his thesis.

Which is it that you find strange: that democracy is rule by mob or that monarchy is a lesser evil?

Remember, he is an historian...

[John F]

I'm not particularly interested in being labeled/categorized to any degree beyond what I've expressed.

But I would think that you would prefer that understanding be part of expressing. If not then why speak at all?

Like most people my stance on issues vary...the single principle that really matters to me is one I have repeated before...."Your rights end where mine begin and My rights end where yours begin."

There you go using the term principle. (I like when people think in principles.)

I understand your stance.

Who mentioned a fence

A fence, whether real or imagined, is what you call for.

that illegal border crossings will halt almost immediately.

This is the systemic point. What makes it illegal?

John, the overwhelming majority of forgery caters to the tens of millions of illegal alien "Customers"......bottom line is that the clientel is far and above illegal.....hence an externally generated issue not systemic.

I think I need examples. I think the overhelming majority of crime in this regard is done by homies. Make it so that it doesn't pay and it will stop. The system, be it welfare or insurance fraud or employment fraud, makes this a crime that pays. Remember, these are people crossing the border. Wherever they are coming from is worse than here.

Close the border or find a way of making it so unbelievably dangerous or uncomfortable to come here and the illegal invasion from the south will slow to a trickle.

That is a form of isolationism.

[EDIT]

Oh yeah:

If we are to be imperialistic, why don't we just take over Mexico and put them on the national payroll. That is the simple solution. Then we only have the Panamanian border to fence. Seems cheaper.

[Bodo]

Holly hijacked thread!!!

Seems every one devolves..............

Godwin's Law applies.

[George Fergusson]

You're sick. Get help.

[Sundance]

Although the comment by JPK was trolling....... it was trolling
at its worst.

Keep it civil folks!!!! This site is accessed by kids and many
who don't get that kind of humor (or lack there of).

[tecumseh]

johnf writes:
And, semantics matter.

tecumseh replies: amen brother. however generating language so nothing means everything is certainly a common technique (1984) in distracting folks.

it does get a bit confusing when you discover that neo liberalism and neo conservatism are ideas with common roots.

some folks rather than lead, would certainly prefer utilize the 3D approach to government...distract, divide and dismantle.

and do any of these tags (a bit akin to name calling for which tecumseh has not been innoculated.. for sure) really fit? see sundance's previous self description.

I suspect most time these description are quite linear, polar and flat. I would like to think that most people are bit more interesting than a flat line.... which is why on a number of occasion I have suggest folks go to political compass and at least add another dimension to their persona.