If nothing else, I have never seen in over 2 years here,  someone  creating 3-4 forums that go over 300 post so quickly in a short amount of time.

How about the current administration, how good of a job do you think they are doing so far?

He had my vote

  The 12 year old AOLer AKA the boy wants it both ways. It wants people tried under international law AND under U.S Code.

  You can't have it both ways.  It is called double jeopardy. But then the boy would not know anything about that.

  Only signatories to an internation treaty can claim a grievance UNDER the treaty.

What is international law?

International law, commonly referred to as "public international law," regulates relations and activities between nations. It also contains rules regarding the operations of international organizations, such as the United Nations. In addition, it governs state treatment of individuals and juridical persons (i.e., non-natural persons, such as a corporation, association or partnership).

International law is distinct from "private international law" (also known as "conflict of laws"), which regulates dealings between individuals and juridical persons from different nations.

Note that international law refers to nations as sovereign states. In this context, sovereign states does not mean states within a nation. Furthermore, in the United States, individual states lack authority to engage in international dealings. The U.S. Constitution explicitly denies states this power, and vests it with the federal government. (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 10).

International law encompasses several areas, such as international trade, the creation and dissolution of states, use of force (regarding when a state may initiate force against another state), armed conflict ("humanitarian law", which regulates how a state conducts an armed conflict), human rights (which are set forth in several international instruments, such as the Declaration of Human Rights), refugees, crimes, environment, labor, the sea, air space, and postal services.

Show Extended Summary
How is international law enforced?

International law differs from domestic law. In the United States, the federal and state governments enforce domestic American law. However, in terms of international law, no government or international organization enforces international law. Although the United Nations Security Council may pass measures authorizing enforcement, the enforcement entity envisioned (Art. 43) to carry out such measures never materialized due to the failure of member states to provide the necessary resources (such as troops). (An enforcement body should not be confused with existing United Nations peacekeeping forces, whose function is to maintain peace and security, not to enforce breaches of international law.)

How are international disputes resolved?

International disputes sometimes result in armed conflict between states, despite the prohibition of aggressive force (meaning, force not used in self-defense) (United Nations Charter, Art. 2(4)). However, most disputes between states are settled peacefully. Pacific settlement is often reached by diplomatic means, whereby states voluntarily comply with international law amidst pressure from other states. Another peaceful settlement mechanism is submission of the matter by the disputing states to an international tribunal, court, or arbitration.

What are the sources of international law?

• International agreements
• Customary law
• jus cogens (meaning "strong law" or "compelling law")
• resolutions passed by international organizations (in some circumstances)
• to an extent, decisions of international tribunals, courts, and arbitrations (depending upon the underlying agreement to arbitrate)
• some general principles of law
• judicial decisions and academic treatises (but only as auxiliary sources)

International agreements (such as treaties, conventions, covenants and protocols) between states are the oldest sources of international law. The earliest known treaty dates back to 1380 B.C., to an alliance between the Hittite King Suppiluliuma I and Aziras of Amurru (a North Syrian province of the Egyptian empire).

Customary law is law developed out of a practice by states of adhering to a particular custom out of a sense of obligation.

Jus cogens describes peremptory norms of international law from which no derogation by treaty is permitted. (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Arts. 53, 64). For example, nations may not contract out of the law forbidding slavery.

In special circumstances, international organizations can create binding law. Resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter may be binding on member states (Arts. 41, 42, 48, 49). An example of such a resolution is one that orders sanctions against a state in response to a breach of international law which threatens international peace and security.

Opinions issued by international tribunals (including courts and arbitration) comprise law to the extent that they are binding upon the states-parties to the proceeding. Such decisions are not binding on non-parties, but may serve to reveal the composition of international law to other states and tribunals.

Other sources of international law may be inferred from those available to the International Court of Justice (the "ICJ," also known as "the World Court," the main judicial organ of the United Nations). In addition to the sources already mentioned, the World Court may rely on general legal principles "as recognized by civilized nations" in deducing international law (Statute of the ICJ, Art. 38). The Court may also draw upon, as secondary sources, "judicial decisions and teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations" in determining the rules of international law (Statute of the ICJ, Art. 38)

http://www.justia.com/international-law/index.html 

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

Breaking News! The White House just recalled all history books!

March 27, 2009 - 07:31 ET by JWF

For immediate promulgation to all Schools & Universities & textbook publishing offices.

As per a memo from the White House the following events shall be renamed to the approved version only.

 Revolutionary war shall be renamed to The voluntary separation of the American Colonies and England

 The War of 1812 shall be renamed to The Exigency of 1812

 The Mexican-American War shall be renamed to The misunderstanding of Mexico and the misguided Americans

 The Civil War shall be renamed to The Fortuity of the attempted separation of some of the wrong-headed states

 The Spanish-American War shall be renamed to The Predicament of the Spanish and the misguided Americans

 World War I shall be renamed to The Occasion when one group of Nations had an Enventuality with the other group of misguided Nations

 World War II shall be renamed to The 2nd Occasion blah blah blah

 The Korean War shall be renamed to The Failed Juncture of teh 2 Koreas

 The Vietnam War shall be renamed to The Incident Where all the hippies got really mad

 Desert Storm shall be renamed to The Opportunity where we used Saddams head for a mop and his butt for a broom

 Afghanistan War shall be renamed to What? Where? Give me a map. I can't find it

 Operation Iraqi Freedom shall be renamed to Bush's War aka Teh War where Bush Lied and Babies Died aka Teh 2nd Incident where all the hippies got mad

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

Intellectual dishonesty and ego

April 5, 2009 - 11:02 ET by JWF

 Another example of intellectual dishonesty -

 The original post of this thread stated you believed people at the highest level of government should be in jail.

  b: to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
3: to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>

   Yet no evidence is offered to back up said belief.

  A commenter called you out on what is arguably an inflammatory statement. Inflammatory because no one is currently under indictment or appears to be in danger of being indicted any time in the future. Here is your response -

Glad to see you're eager to participate in the discussion!

  Participation requires the actions of at least 2 people. This was a dismissive statement ignoring any arguments that were brought up.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

Intellectual dishonesty and lots of it.

April 6, 2009 - 00:09 ET by JWF

  The Geneva Conventions only cover signatories TO the various conventions. The Geneva Conventions DID not cover the Taliban who were NOT signatory to it. Nor do the Geneva Conventions cover Al Qaeda who are not affiliated with any Government.

  WE are required to honor the Geneva Conventions only when engaged in a war with another SIGNATORY to the Geneva Conventions.

  The Geneva Conventions are not law. They are a series of treaties. The are a contractual obligation between nations that have signed the Geneva Conventions.

 They do not apply here and ARE NOT PROOF. They only applied to Iraqi POW's during the 2nd Gulf War, and we have no Iraqi POW's currently.

 Only signatories to a treaty, any treaty, can claim protection under that treay. That is international law.

  We could take any taliban or al qaeda and twist their nuts in a vise and it would not matter one wit when it comes to the Geneva Convention.

  George Bush's simple declaration that anyone we capture is by definition an "unlawful combatant" does not a tribunal make.   

  More intellectual dishonesty. He did not HAVE to declare anything. They were unlawful combatants under the Laws of War.

The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).[1] However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to POW status; and there are other international treaties that deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children. In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of this term and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant under United States law. *

  Did you catch that? The Military Commisions Act of 2006 codified the word NOT GEORGE BUSH.

  You are wrong again. Time for the needling to start? More English arse kicking?

"Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under chapter 47A – Military Commissions (of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (10 U.S.C. 948a (Section 1, Subchapter I))). The definition of unlawful and lawful enemy combatant is given in Chapter 47A—Military commission: Subchapter I--General provisions: Sec. 948a. Definitions *

 Is that right? The definition of unlawful and unlawful enemy combatant is defined by CONGRESS? Well, looks like someone needs to open a BIG OL' CAN of arse kickin's.

How many of those prisoners in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib have been before a tribunal?

 ALL OF THEM. They have ALL been before a military judge to determine the status. And a good number have been released. More intellectual dishonesty.

http://www4.law.corn...

 Ah yes, now it is our laws. Which is it? International law or U.S law? You cannot have both. It is called Double Jeopardy.

You linked to United States Code -

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C Torture

Torture is defined therein - (not your direct link, we have to move up a link - more intellectual dishonesty)

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

 Severe, I repeat, severe physical or mental pain.

 Making someone THINK they are drowning for a few minutes IS NOT TORTURE.

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

 Again, making someone THINK they are drowning for a few minutes, NOT TORTURE.

  The United States has it's own special attorney, the United States Attorney General. He determines what and what does not fall under legal or illegal definitions that persons in the employ of the United States Government performs. Not intellectually dishonest needlers.

And think about this -- If the WH believed that what they were doing was legal, then why would they have worried that it was going to looked upon as criminal? 

  Worried? Now we have to be mind readers? We are not here to engage in acts of mind reading to find out how WORRIED people in the White House seem to be. 

 Why would the White House have brought in lawyers to draft "The Torture Memo" and other CYA documents, in an attempt to prove they were not breaking any laws?

 Why do tobacco companies have teams of lawyers? Why does Coca-Cola have teams of lawyers? The government has had a team of lawyers for SINCE 1789. It is called the Office of the United States Attorney. The head guy is called the United States Attorney General. They have an entire building chock full of lawyers whose only job is to ensure ALL DOCUMENTS stemming from the U.S Government are legal.

The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President **

  And incidently, why are Woo, Feith and others now backing away from it like a cat from a cold bath...?

   I am unable to disprove a negative. How can I find proof of something THAT DOES NOT EXIST. Douglas Feith wrote a book explaining a lot of what went on in the Bush Administration. I am unable to find a single quote of him denouncing the actions taken by the Bush administration when it came to the issue or torture/nontorture.

  Who is Woo? This is the top link in google for Woo - http://www.worldofoutlaws.com/

  Seriously, who is Woo? Can someone tell me why this Woo guy is? I am tired of doing due research for someone that goes by belief rather than facts.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

* source wikipedia - yes that liberal wikipedia.

** http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/

Golly Gee. Look what I found!
Prosecution of German & Japanese war crimes.March 16, 2009 - 00:51 ET by JWF

The prosecution of German & Japanese war crimes were under SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONS that were drawn up with the EXPRESS intention of prosecuting them.

No one has been prosecuted for war crimes under our Constitution. Espionage - yes. Treason - yes. War crimes - no.

PI314 LIES! PI314 is a LIAR.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

Intellectual dishonesty and ticking off the veteran

April 6, 2009 - 00:37 ET by JWF

Rush binds half his brain behind his back.March 16, 2009 - 02:31 ET by JWF

 I keep both hemispheres free range so as to apply the full power of all teh smartiness.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-torture7feb07,0,1028317.story

Congress has passed two laws -- the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 and the Military Commissions Act in 2006 -- that ban the use of harsh interrogation methods and require all U.S. agencies to comply with the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions in their treatment of detainees. 

Congress outlawed harsh interrogation techniques but like the pi314 coward they failed to mention waterboarding by name or acton.

The White House said Wednesday that the widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding is legal and that President Bush could authorize the CIA to resume using the simulated-drowning method under extraordinary circumstances.
 

President Bush said he could still do it.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30384

And there’s a quirk in President Obama’s orders:  they don’t bind him.  That’s right: the President isn’t bound by his own executive order. Like President Bush did, he can authorize additional interrogation methods.  (According to one intelligence community source, Obama’s lawyers have admitted this to be true.)
 

President Obama issued an Executive Order banning torture techniques. Um, hello? He can just as easily issue another Executive Order authorising torture when needed whenever he wants.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

Intellectual dishonesty and 12 year old AOLers.

April 6, 2009 - 01:27 ET by JWF

  Hey everybody, does this look familiar?

HI!!11!! OMG MAH NM3 SI PI314!11!! OMG LOL IMM A LIB!!1!! IMM H3RE 2 DISCUS ISUES RELATNG 2 POLITIS!111!1! OMG WTF

IF U DONT INSULT ME I WONT INSULT U!!11!!11 LOL ON THES THREAD BYGONES WIL B BYGONES!!1!1!!!1 OMG WTF LOL

HER3S WUT I BLEIV3

Or this?

ARRRRRGGGHHHHHHH!@@!#

April 6, 2009 - 00:48 ET by pi314

Oh GAWD, we've had ALL of these discussions before, and I've already proven the point over and over.

Dude, you're a hoot!@!@#

I just imagine some guy in his bermudas and black socks and sandles, sitting in front of a computer somewhere on the Gulf Coast, saying "Dammit Marge -- Look at what this little shit wrote!!!!  Why I'll show him!!!"  LOLOL

And then, like every 20 minutes you jump up and run outside and yell "You kids --  GET OFFA MY LAWN!!!!"

HA!@!#  Oh gawd... I gotta go to bed 

Visit this site and you too can talk like pi557. 

The English-to-12-Year-Old-AOLer Translator

http://ssshotaru.homestead.com/files/aolertranslator.html 

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

President Kennedy did not need to wear a flag pin.

October 17, 2008 - 13:10 ET by JWF

 He wore the love of his country on his sleeve.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Cut & Run Obama says of a war we started and are winning -

Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was," he said. "'The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now.

Nah, won't pay that price, not for that foe, not to help that friend, too hard, screw you liberty, screw you and the horse you rode in on and the flag he was carrying.

Oh sorry, I was paraphrasing there.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

I HAVE PROOF! I HAVE PROOF! I HAVE PROOF!April 6, 2009 - 09:09 ET by JWF

Look everybody! I have proof listed right on the direct BEST SOURCE EVEH, wikipedia. pi314's favorite proofy site.

pi314 is a viscous liberal turd!

He LOVES wikipedia.

And I already gave you the link to the Wiki article.

MY PROOF pi314 is a viscous liberal turd!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi314 

Pi314

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

pi314 is a particulary viscuous type of liberal turd.

Typical example of a pi314 post.

The 12 year old AOLer speaks.

WHAT?!?!??!?!?!!@!@#

You're linking to YOUR OWN POST as back up!?!?!?!!@!#

HA! HAhahahhaHAHHHHAH!@!!!@#!@#!@!@!

Oh GAWD you're funny!@#!2

• reply
• Email this page

How sad.April 6, 2009 - 09:32 ET by JWF

  Even the liberal wikipedia does not want a pi314 stinking up their website.

This page has been deleted. The deletion log for the page is provided below for reference.

• 13:17, 6 April 2009 Dank55 (talk | contribs) deleted "Pi314" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)  

  Wow. Turns out nobody likes a pi314 in their toilet bowl. Wikipedia sure did hit the flush handle fast.

Lil bit, just a lil bit, tiny bit.

September 1, 2008 - 18:20 ET by JWF

  does a person standing for the national anthem automatically represent love of country and vice versa? First of all, it is the law. Second, no that's it, it is the law.

 Security people, ok, allowed to do their job. Concessions, no, do the best you can to stand and face the flag without setting the place on fire. Taking pictures as a photographer allowed. Don't interfere though. Combat photographers, not a fair comparison, they are expressly forbidden to pick up a gun.

 No one is asking for love, it is called respect. Respect for the symbol of the United States and all who have died for her.

 Yes, journalists sitting at a convention, should follow the law and show respect. As I said, only the guy wired up, live on camera, is exempted, but the camera should pan off him.

my thoughts on Obama and the gaffes the MSM overlooks.

No. It is Obama's problem with the military that is scary. He is making Kerry look like a true patriot. His gaffes when it comes to the flag and military are laughable.

1. The flag pin: he removed his flag pin because it is a substitute for true patriotism? Honoring the flag is the highest form of patriotism. It is the symbol of our country. It flies at every embassy & military installation around the world. The United States flag is the last thing a veteran receives before he is put in the ground.

2. Hand over his heart: there is a picture of him failing to place his hand over his heart during the playing national anthem whilst the flag is displayed. Another issue of patriotism? Uh, IT'S THE LAW! The flag code is part of the laws of this country.

3. He says we are "air raiding villages and killing civilians": apparently his knowledge of the military stops at WWII. We have made amazing strides in precision guided munitions. I have been retired six years and I am amazed. They are getting so good that there are efforts to make them smaller now. So our troops can be acrosss the street when a house with insurgents is hit, for example. They can be closer and therefore able to rush in and mop up. This country takes extreme efforts to minimize civilian casualties. The only reason civilians are killed, I suspect, is because the enemy takes cover by mixing in with them.

4. He wants to invade our friends (Pakistan) and talk to our enemies (Iran) : Do I need to expound on that?

5. His latest gaffe. "And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief." : For one thing, an army never has enough vehicles, ships & planes. Congress pays for those, not the CinC. Scrounging weapons off the enemy dead? That borders on a lie. He is the only one on the planet making this extraordinary claim. Why is he not being called to back this up?

The president is the man in charge of the military. This guy is not ready to be an entry level enlisted boot.

Stand back everybody...the long winded one has arrived!

After days of this spectacle (and my own low ratings) I thought I would give this a shot.  I have a different approach, one both subjective and verbose.  We baked plenty of cinnamon rolls and have a few gallons of sun tea, fresh milk and homemade soda ready for the spectators.  So hunker down and listen to one ol' man's two cents.  Or completely disregard this post...enjoy the refreshments.  :)

One of the stated purposes of NB is to expose the liberal bias in the media.  An additional purpose would be and is the dissemination and promotion of ideas; social, political and others (bread, ports, etc.)

As NB is a form of media, studying and drawing conclusions as to the above purposes, forming ideas as to content and biases, expanding all users abilities to learn from and identify bias or attributes of opposing political ideologues is of benefit to all.

Like some other posters, I have had some need to address the center of this forum, yet I have been able to realize that there is little or no benefit in doing so on their terms.  Frankly, there is not the slightest chance that the center of the debate will accept any point I make. My references would be, in their eyes, inadequate, my interpretation of a reference, in their eyes, incorrect. In addition to this, if I pushed a point I would be subject to derision, disrespect and patronizing condescension. While I have thick skin, I don't needlessly self-abuse; I only fight when it matters.  I am able to recognize a person who has firmly planted beliefs and opinions and I can understand and live with that.  Their beliefs are based on their perceptions, education, experiences and beliefs, just like anyone's are.

I never think that I am going to change someone's politics; I merely offer my own perspective and share with them my humanity.  Sometimes I am able to make people take out their beliefs and look them over.  Sometimes they change their minds.  But I don't think that I am going to achieve those things, guaranteed.  By offering a counterpoint to an opposing view, we offer an undecided or less entrenched person more data from which to base their own political direction.

I want to offer these things for the record, for this post and my future here at NB, however long that may be.

• If my beliefs are challenged or even insulted, I will not name call.  I am not in grade school. Thrown tomatoes do not give us the excuse to lose our dignity. "Stoic" is an unfortunate casualty of the modern era.
• If my views are challenged or questioned in the same way they have been at an earlier time, I will answer again, without animosity, as best I can.  I will not say "I have already answered that." I am happy for the chance to engage again.  Life contains many instances where we will be endlessly challenged through repetition.
• If I say I will answer a person's response, then I will do so, as soon as I can and as completely as I can, without animosity. I will not blow you off, even if you pose an awkward question.
• I will not consider a political opponent stupid or evil.  They may prove themselves to be, but I do not equate disagreement with me alone as justification of someone's stupidity or darkness.
• I will never laugh at someone in a debate.  I will not laugh at their ideas or beliefs.  I may think them wrong, or less than my own, but laughter at another human being without laughing at oneself first is one of the primary signs of a person lacking respect for themselves and others.  Laughing as a weapon or distraction is cheap and patronizing.  Remember: no one likes to be ridiculed, patronized or mocked.  In the words of the Duke, "I don't do these things to others and I expect the same in return."  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" makes for good neighbors, Christian or not.
• I will not utilize "bumper sticker"responses.  I will give the most complete, honest and respectful answer I can.  Arguments and ideas take time and effort to develop.  The burden of understanding rests on both the speaker and the listener.  They must honestly seek to understand and to be understood to the other.
• I will keep to the high ground, even in the face of the lowest common denominator of human behavior: rudeness.
• I will foster the spirit of camaraderie, humor and hospitality, as much as I can.  If I tease, it will be friendly, gentle and directed at myself and my own silly existence just as much as it is directed at another.
• I will apologize, humbly, when I have failed as a decent human being to uphold myself with kindness, generosity and in a civilized manner. When I apologize, it will be for the benefit of the person wronged, not myself.  I will not qualify an apology; being wrong is being wrong. I may ask for the right to explain, and if granted, I will explain.The person whom I wronged decides if the apology is adequate, not me.  I will not apologize to placate, I will not apologize for what I believe and I will not apologize for apologizing.
• I realize that even the use of references is not absolute.  All data, every source, is subject not only to the perceptions, experiences, education and beliefs of the person creating the reference or gathering the data but also that the person citing said reference is also using their own filters.
• Bottom Line:  I will not behave in a boorish manner. I may be boring, but never boorish. If we act on the same level as our opponents, we are no better than they are.  To meet fire with fire is one thing; to engage in the very behavior that makes them our enemy is not only foolish, but self-defeating.

Having said all that, I will say this: Manners are important.  They can let society move more easily and smoothly.  In the modern era, it has become fashionable to take the position that rudeness somehow demonstrates individuality, strength and freedom.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  To keep a level head, a calm voice, maintain your dignity, treat others gently and keep a rational, realist perspective is to be in control of yourself, and self-control is true strength.  Anyone who has worked with large, unruly groups or has had to deal with confrontational situations knows this: calm gets results.  The well-mannered make for better neighbors.  we all lose our cool sometimes, but it important to always be diligently self-aware.

Part (not a large part, but a significant part) of what brings me to Conservatism is how my people are treated by folks of other political persuasions.  My experience has been that Conservatives afford us better treatment and less judgment than others.  They have also made better neighbors, respecting our rights, keeping their property tidy, paying their bills, conducting themselves with decorum, being kinder, more generous and helpful compared to our experiences with others.

I was not raised in a political party.  I was raised in an environment which embraced the idea of accepting and evaluating on what something is, not what we want it to be.  Based on this, my evaluations are based on my experience. Others may have had different experiences, but I must use my own existence as the primary measure of my existence.  In other words, as only I can truly know me, only I can truly be responsible for me.  I am happy to hear others, to engage the world around me, but in the case of a tie, my own experience will be the tie-breaker.

Having stated quite a bit about who I am, what I believe and where I am coming from, I am now entering the fray.  I have stated what I will and will not do.  the way, from my point of view, to carry out my purpose in commenting on this forum is to select a subject, for study, to investigate manners in relation to ideology.  I will study that subject by gathering data as fairly as possible and them posting, later, a full disclosure and the results of that study.

Perhaps this study will be of value to someone, perhaps not.  This is my own necessary first step into this debate.

The proposed study:

The primary subject of this study will be the comments of the poster Pi314.  This not an evaluation of the person, as such, but more a study of the connection between conduct and ideology. In this sampling, this subject will represent a category of Liberal/Democrats.

The secondary subjects of this study will be comments of other posters, of varying types and degrees of political ideology.again, these are not evaluations of the persons, but again the connection of conduct and ideology. In this sampling, these subjects (more than a dozen) will represent additional Liberal/Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats, Mouseketeers and any other variety that the study discloses.  The political ideologies will only be self-defined ones on the part of the poster through comments or bio; political labels will not be applied beacause of content.

Raw Demographic Origin Data for the Primary Subject:

• Pi314 has been a member of NB for 43 weeks 4 Days
• self-declared liberal/democrat
• family man (wife, daughter)
• lives in N.J. has ties to NYC
• declared self as Sicilian
• American citizen
• owns a shotgun
• helps around the house (helps wife cook)
• helps daughter in Girl Scouts
• non-vegetarian 
• no prior military service
• 54 years old
• male

This information was garnered from comments and is included only as demographic identifiers.  I will update this as my staff wades through 1200+ posts.

Based on this data, I would have to say that there is nothing negatively or positively exceptional; just seems like a standard American.  "Regular Joe" type.

Raw data for secondary subjects to be provided as necessary and available.

Comments to be included in this study will be found in the 17 blogs/forums tracked to Pi314 at this date.  The cut off time for these comments will be 08:24 AM MDT, April 07, 2009.  Once the initial data is gathered, we will be happy to amend with posts up to a new date. But we have to start somewhere.

Question: Is there a correlation between manners and political ideology? 

Hypothesis: A significant number of Liberals are condescending, patronizing, disrespectful, hypocritical, elitist and are generally boorish.  The behavior of many, not all, of their behavior as a group is parallel to that one guest you have at your dinner party who keeps partaking of alcohol beyond socialization, who, once the supply of booze is exhausted, drives quickly to the liquor store to resupply.  The guest grows less and less reasonable, more combative and continues to escalate the disrespect, insulting and patronization of other guests, always promoting their cherished beliefs as the Ultimate Truth.  This study further will seek to discover if this failure to engage in intellectually honest, polite and respectful debate is applicable to Liberals in general; is the polite, well spoken Liberal the rule or the exception?

Secondary Hypothesis:  When confronting the "drunken guest" political situation, there are several responses, including taking sides, inappropriate frustrated aggression, peace-making and leaving the "party."  To be determined:  which and to what degree might any or all of these actions amount to behavior as boorish as the "guest" type?

*Note*  In my short time as a member here at NB, I have had mostly positive experiences, including with those who disagree with some of my views.  I appreciate that. *Note*

Continuing...

Experiment: I and my staff will once again read through all 17 tracked Pi314 forum/bog items and the attendant 1200+ posts therein.  by doing this, we will be able to gather a significant test sampling of behavior in regards to manners.  This will take a few days; be patient.  The categories we will allocate comments and portions thereof are as follows (but not limited to):

• unanswered legitimate debate requests
• unanswered debate questions
• categorical apologies, i.e with or without qualifiers 
• the &^$@($^@^$@ OH MY GAWDS!!!
• The HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 's
• name calling as an insult direct
• the insult direct
• denigrating another persons faith or lack thereof
• derision phrases
• patronizing catch phrases
• Buh BYE
• aHem
• internet short talk
• LOL in and of itself
• and anything else which is not germane to its thread (friendly chat aside) but is instead the disregard of the humanity of another human being

Once the data are gathered and collated, I will post all the results, conclusions and my own opinions here and in its own Woodshed forum. My staff works as I write.

Once the study is complete, maybe someone will be interested, maybe not.  I, for one, am interested in those 1200+ posts accomplishing something besides grinding egos and getting jollies.  Granted there were brief moments of real content, but even those moments were fraught with disrespectful behavior and bad manners .  We will see if my life experience aligns with the recent experiences at NB.

Personally, if I ever acted the way folks have acted in the Woodshed (heated debate DOES NOT have to be so d*mn rude) lately, my Momma would have beaten me into the next life, regardless if I were right or wrong.  And she is right; you do not defeat stereotypes by becoming one.

Just because we don't agree, won't agree. can't agree, shouldn't agree, whatever, doesn't give us a license to treat someone with disrespect. Even if your opponent is more guilty than you, think about this: you can't be a little bit pregnant; you are or you aren't. Let the rude be rude; you will garner more respect and veracity to your argument, even from those you disagree with regularly.  If you can stick to your guns, under fire you will accomplish more.  Remember, people are judged by the company they keep, so too are your ideas and beliefs judged in the same way.  A rude person only impresses other classless people.

I understand when enough is enough, and Churchill is right, sometimes you do have to "step on the other guys toes until HE apologizes."  At the same time, Churchill, one of the greatest speakers of the modern are (or any era) was direct, on topic and unflappable.  His demeanor was one of respect for himself and his audience.

I understand that Free Speech gives a person certain latitude in not only what you say but how you say it.  My comments on manners no way endorses shutting people up.  I am looking at this from practical and philosophical viewpoints.

All things being equal, I do believe a dueling society would be of great benefit and solve the question of manners decisively...

Thank you your time and consideration to this post.  We will crunch this data. check our work and see what we find.

Does anyone need a refill?  How about some homemade ice cream?

"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H

 "I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!" -Me

I think you are sincere in wanting to debate.  So I was interested to see facts and sources from chose life 3xs re: stem cell research.  I was wondering if you have a response to her post?  It seems to me that the evidence is pretty overwhelming.  Respectfully,  BO STINKS 

The great Socio/Economic Experiments of the 20th cent. (communism, socialism, fascism) only killed a few hundred million.  Let's give 'em another try! - me

Pi, you're a freakin' joke.

Are you trying to tick off the Vet?

April 7, 2009 - 12:43 ET by JWF

  Rule 15. Don't torque the Vet.

  Rule 18. Read the Vet's Posts. Learn.

  Rule 19. Don't make the Vet repeat himself. See Rule 15 & 18

Debate pi314 with facts

 Have you been reading what I have written here?

If you want to argue that waterboarding is wrong from a moral or ethical standpoint, fine. I won't bother you. You are wrong, but you are allowed to argue it.

  If you claim that waterboarding WAS* illegal and people should be indicted based on international law or U.S Code. You better be able to back it up. No one is currently under indictment nor under investigation. Nor is there any credible talk of investigations or indictments.

  It was LEGAL and to make accusations against people saying it was not is inflammatory, partisan, and a LIE.

  Are you trying to tell The Vet what to do?

if you find yourself "losing"...disengage

  And what is with the quotes? Losing is a common word found in every dictionary.

Trying to expose an anonymous poster by showing personal information...

  You are either a sock puppet or not very bright like him. The IP address/sock puppet was a ruse to get him to call me a liar. And it worked. I could then use his own BELIEVE words back at him.

  READ THE THREAD.

  You want to go up against The Vet? Get in line. Don't worry, it is a short one.

 No conservative would ever engage in the...

"No True Scotsman ..." fallacy

Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This is an example of an ad hoc change being used to shore up an assertion, combined with an attempt to shift the meaning of the words used original assertion; you might call it a combination of fallacies.

 You mean no true conservatives like these, sock puppet?

 I believe the right listens to too many voices -- Limbough, Coulter, Beck, Hannity, Erick Erickson, Mark Levin

  Why don't you explain what constitutes a true conservative. Because I don't like porridge. Sock puppet.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

You are certainly a piece of work.
December 29, 2008 - 09:58 ET by JWF
You are certain about winning the war in Iraq, not having the justification to start Gulf War I & II, how bad it is putting our money in the stock market, how bad the legacy of Bush is, but you are not certain about the future of the stock market, future terrorist attacks, future financial fraud, or the actions of other countries. Maybe if you put a little more thought in what has JUST happened, we would not be so taxed with your foibles.

1. The war in Iraq ended with the collapse of Saddam Husseins government and the capture of Saddam himself. WE declared the war over at that point. There is no one to sign a surrender. Saddam would not in his prison cell and everyone else melted into the population or fled the country.

2. What happened next was an INSURGENCY. Insurgencies do not end with a bang but a whimper. You kill or capture enough of the insurgents, the few left say it is not worth it and melt into the population at large. They do not typically stand up, say we surrender, and ask for the paperwork. Insurgencies also have a bad habit of turning the population they claim to be fighting for AGAINST THEM by their own actions. This happened in this case. Iraqi's themselves got tired of getting BLOWED UP and turned against the insurgents.

3. We were talking about the war in Iraq. You moved the argument to Islam at large. Islam is at war with the entire Dar al-Islam (non muslim countries) STICK TO THE POINTS. You complain we had no reason to go into Iraq or Kuwait, yet you ask us to solve the PROBLEM OF THE INTIRE ISLAMIC WORLD. Make up your mind, are we going to fix things or ignore them. You started the argument. Concede the point or disprove it. Don't move the argument when it looks like you are losing.

4. Colin Powell nor George Bush nor Cheney started the war in Iraq part deux. The 535 members of Congress authorised the use of force in Iraq in Oct 2002. ONLY CONGRESS can declare war and fund said war. The President is in charge of the conduct of the war. Congress listed 23 reasons in their authorization of force.

5. WMD was only one of the 23 reasons listed. The MSM focused on the WMD issue. You bought into it. There should have been ZERO munitions old, weapons grade or otherwise. They were supposed to be destroyed as per the armistice Saddam Hussien agreed to.

6. Yes WMD's were found and reported. Yes the MSM utterly failed to report it. Weekly Standard listed pages and pages of them 4 YEARS AGO!

7. President Bush gives speeches nearly every day. There are the white house press conferences nearly every day. The President made his point repeatedly. Again the MSM utterly failed to report any of it.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

PS: stop with the quotes on common english words. Who are you quoting? weapons grade is common english usage. Only liberals liberally use quotations for no reason.