Hypocrisy and Right vs. Left Wing

[LCMS_No_More]

You don’t have to chase rabbit holes. I provided a link which included YouTube links, among them were fox news and the infamous testicles exchange with Yoo himself.

You also utterly ignored the other links. The Yoo memo was not beginning. It was the high level meetings to establish a policy of torture that was first. The Yoo memo was then solicited from the Justice Department for cover. Notice that Yoo signed off on it himself (mormally the AG would sign off on it, but we know that the AG had concerns that the US was heading squarely into war crimes area).

We also do not even have to look to the memo, or the news. Everything that really matters is right here.

I’ve stated that conservatives may well think differently. Bamarider was happy to proudly state what the research suggests (reading what I have to say is not nec. to form an opinion about it, he is certain of his moral superioritity, regardless of the human condition in his state, etc.). And you joined him, by asserting demonstrably false things, like how I vote.

I also stated that torture is a non negotiable, and provided Church documents to support that position. No one has provided any Church documents to counter that claim.

You are trying to some how ‘catch’ me. Then argue that any error of fallacy, however small, invalidates the whole. Again, this demonstrates a willingness to abandon reason. But it remains moot.

We have a large body of evidence, on many fronts, and the US government has acknowledged that it has engaged in practices which, under long standing US policy, are torture.

But even if we erase that, and follow your thread pulling. My fundemental point remains made. I have stated that I am not willing to compromise on torture, but that many folks here are. Bamarider affirmed that directly, and was joined by others.

We’ve been watching Mommie Dearest at work during lunch over the past few days and there’s a great scene where Ms. Crawford is telling the decorators how she wants her apartment in New York to look. At one point she demands a window be put in a certain wall and she is told that it’s a bearing wall (take it out and the building collapses). To this she blithely replies:

“Well, tear down that ***** of a bearing wall and put a window where it ought to be!”

That sounds pretty much like what you’ve been describing, SoCal. She wants it, told why it’s impossible and still demands it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Just for the benefit of readers, a report was just recently published that explained in great detail from translated captured documents that there in fact was a close relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda.

I will post a link.

There was an excellent article in The Weekly Standard.

weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/954igypd.asp

Check the Weekly Standard frequently. If you have the money, buy a paper subscription; it’s easier to read than the Web site, although the Web site has excellent excellent articles.

Stephen Hayes has written on this Saddam- al Qaeda connection frequently and he has been severely criticized, only to be vindicated subsequently.

www.weeklystandard.com

Excellent.

I’m sorry,but relying on the Weekly standard for facts is like relying on National Review for facts. you have to suspend common sense first. Wm Krisol has a good deal of self interest in promoting a "al Qaeda /Saddam connection. He was part of the “thnk tank” and I use that term as loosely as possible that dreamed up this catastrophe. There is no evidence of a connection and geesh the major players have even admitted that. Kristol is just so embarassed he’ll stoop to no level to try to look better.

 

[BamaRider]

I feel this thread is gonna be locked soon, so I’m gonna get my last few words in LOL.

Any lurkers out here should know my core of beliefs by now. Now you can contrast my vision of America with the others, and see which is the one you might wanna follow. I believe we are a good nation, trying to do difficult things. I was the son of a bricklayer and waitress who loved this country and passed on my Catholic Faith to me, and they told me I could be anything I wanted to be in this country. It is not corporations one must fear, but govt, because it has to the power to keep you down with taxes, and regulation.

I’m just a retired firefighter, some here pay more in taxes then I ever made in salary, but I would’t trade places, cause man I’m having fun. I don’t need the headaches big money brings, but for those that feel diffrently, they should be left alone to pursue that goal.

My dad was a WWII vet (Pacific) he flew a flag in our yard till the day he died, now some elitist tell me his vision of hope and optimism that he passed on to me is not correct. I spent a hour looking back on these posts to try to see what I might have missed and all I get outta some is how bad things are and because of me and like thinking guys, people are being tortured, old folks are kicked out in the streets, kids are starving, babies denied healthcare, and its all because of folks like my parents are too brainwashed to vote for the people who have a plan for all that. That 40 years of the Great Society has NOT been enough, we gotta give more, and I’m tired of it.

Well I don’t buy into any of that stuff. You can be anything you want if you go out and go to work. We are the good guys, and it is because of our military I can worship in my Catholic Faith without fear of having my head cut off, but when we try to give others that same comfort in some foreign land, we are condemned.

No matter who gets elected this fall, I’m still gonna be optimisitic (but given the choices on the ballot, I don’t see the status quo changing) That means I’m gonna ride my motorycles, eat lunch out everyday in my favorite places while I read the paper, gonna run and train, watch my big screen, and yes walk to Mass on First Friday,and on the weekends with my wife and nieces, and enjoy my son when he comes home to visit, but mostly enjoy my retirement. If we have a recession, I’m not gonna participate in it.

Now some of y’all can sit around and woe is me about how bad stuff is, but I don’t have time for that, because I think things are mostly good, not perfect by a long way, but better then anywhere else.

Thanks to the folks like Al, the RidgeRunner, Vern, and Estesbob for helping me see just how good I have it. I’d read one of SoCal’s, RIbeye, or Spirit’s posts and go “oh man, things are bad, the country is gonna collapse next month,” only to read one of their’s and say, “Nah we’re ok, all those boys are doin good, and so am I.” LOL

Geeze if a Martian read some of these posts, he’d think a Catholic with a pleasant life was an abomination, the way some of y’all hammer folks that happen to be affluent.

And thats all I gotta say about that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We’ve been watching Mommie Dearest at work during lunch over the past few days and there’s a great scene where Ms. Crawford is telling the decorators how she wants her apartment in New York to look. At one point she demands a window be put in a certain wall and she is told that it’s a bearing wall (take it out and the building collapses). To this she blithely replies:

“Well, tear down that ***** of a bearing wall and put a window where it ought to be!”

That sounds pretty much like what you’ve been describing, SoCal. She wants it, told why it’s impossible and still demands it.

Ah, how deluded we’ve been. Here we’ve gone to college and graduate school, taken special high-powered courses in our fields, worked decades in some of the most hostile places in the world, worked at tough jobs and so on.

And all we really had to do was to watch a movie or two to in order to be as smart as you are.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Just for the benefit of readers, a report was just recently published that explained in great detail from translated captured documents that there in fact was a close relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda.

I will post a link.

There was an excellent article in The Weekly Standard.

weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/954igypd.asp

Check the Weekly Standard frequently. If you have the money, buy a paper subscription; it’s easier to read than the Web site, although the Web site has excellent excellent articles.

Stephen Hayes has written on this Saddam- al Qaeda connection frequently and he has been severely criticized, only to be vindicated subsequently.

www.weeklystandard.com

Excellent.

Folks interested in the Iraq war should do their own research, … and that’s the reason I’ve recommended The Weekly Standard and Stephen Hayes.

They, … (and National Review) … act as a counter balance to the Washington Post.

Get both sides … and keep mousing around the internet. Do some actual library research.

---

And Stephen Hayes’ article was based on a report released in March 2008. Dunno where SoCalRC is coming from with his comment about getting the info several years ago.

Here’s the paragraph from Hayes’ article:

“Well, we have our answers. They came in the 1,600-page Pentagon study released on March 13 and entitled Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, produced after a review of some 600,000 documents unearthed in postwar Iraq. And it is a devastating indictment of the U.S. intelligence community’s analysis of Iraq, the Clinton administration’s counterterrorism policy, and the arguments of anyone who would use the word “supposed” to describe Iraq’s links to terrorists.”

---

Maybe we can find a link to the actual 1600 page Pentagon study that was released on March 13, 2008.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Anyone interested in the origins of the current mess with subprime mortgages should read this article on the Community Reinvestment Act. This is where it started.

lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

Here are the first three paragraphs: … but don’t rely on Lew Rockwell … I know some people don’t like him … although he didn’t personally write the article. But use the CRA as the leaping off point on your own research.

---

The thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the “subprime” housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call “communities of color” that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.

The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists who supported the Carter administration and were often rewarded for their support with government grants and programs like the CRA that they benefited from. These included various “neighborhood organizations,” as they like to call themselves, such as “ACORN” (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). These organizations claim that over $1 trillion in CRA loans have been made, although no one seems to know the magnitude with much certainty. A U.S. Senate Banking Committee staffer told me about ten years ago that at least $100 billion in such loans had been made in the first twenty years of the Act.

So-called “community groups” like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion. The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA “protest” is issued by a “community group.” This can cost banks great sums of money, and the “community groups” understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.

 

[Al_Masetti]

If anyone does a Google search for the Community Reinvestment Act and subprime mortgages, all sorts of interesting things come up.

Here is another one:

openmarket.org/2008/02/06/bogus-discrimination-charges-led-to-subprime-mortgage-crisis/

There’s even a blog about it:

wordpress.com/tag/community-reinvestment-act-of-1977/

Apparently the President of the United States who signed the CRA was Jimmy Carter:

city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

 

[SoCalRC]

My dad was a WWII vet (Pacific) he flew a flag in our yard till the day he died, now some elitist tell me his vision of hope and optimism that he passed on to me is not correct.

My father served in WW-II. A Captain in the USMC, he lost his leg in combat. I volunteered and did two tours as a combat medic in Vietnam. I carry bone fragments of another human being in my solder.

I grew up in a house with no indoor plumbing because my father refused to lie about being Catholic for the sake of a much better job.

You are confused. My message has been that my Catholic faith is true and correct. It is a reflection of the will of God and should be followed to the best of our abilities. The Church states, Dogmatically and Infallibily, that affronts to the inalienable rights of the human person are an affront to God.

In this thread, as you have leveled falsehood after falsehood against me, I have continually stated that we are fellow children of God, brought equal by our shared unworthiness. This is hardly a new thought, Catholics state this aloud each week at Mass.

I cannot profess to be a ‘good’ Christian, or a ‘good’ Catholic. I am just another sinner. But I am a devout Catholic.

You have insisted that you are part of a group of people that is morally superior to other Americans. You have repeatedly assigned labels to me in a hurtful fashion. And you have shown no hesitation to profess to know my heart and mind and assign the most hurtful of accusations. I cannot look into your heart and mind, but I can see your actions. I can also look up the definition of “elistist”. Tell me, since you profess yourself to be morally superior, why does that label not apply to you?

 

[SoCalRC]

If anyone does a Google search for the Community Reinvestment Act and subprime mortgages, all sorts of interesting things come up.

Here is another one:

openmarket.org/2008/02/06/bogus-discrimination-charges-led-to-subprime-mortgage-crisis/

There’s even a blog about it:

wordpress.com/tag/community-reinvestment-act-of-1977/

Apparently the President of the United States who signed the CRA was Jimmy Carter:

city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

You can also google alien abductions, pyramid mysteries, and the power of crystals.

The problem with your theory is that is does not match reality. CRA applies to regulated lenders, and mortgages made under it are failing at a significantly lower rate than other mortgages. That is, in today’s market, those are the solvent loans.

Similiarly, look at the big slimebags in the current meltdown. They are unregulated entities, not covered by the requirements of CRA.

In 2007, the average down payment for first time home buyers was 2%. Nearly half put no money down at all, financing even their fees. When lenders are allowing people to buy homes at inflated prices even when they cannot afford the paper work, is it any wonder we have a disaster? None of that is in CRA. It is reckless buyers, reckless lenders, and a fantasy belief in infinite bubble expansion.

What made it worse is that these loans got spread around as legitimate, low risk, investments in the more traditional financial world.

 

[SoCalRC]

And Stephen Hayes’ article was based on a report released in March 2008. Dunno where SoCalRC is coming from with his comment about getting the info several years ago.

Hayes wrote a book in 2004 called “The Connection”. It was debunked. However, I assumed that you were talking about the article he wrote about it in the Weekly Standard.

If Hayes has a new article, good for him. I keep forgetting that conservatives often have fixed belief systems. But if he is asserting that the newest report shows a link, then he is asserting that the Pentagon is wrong, since, as I showed you, the Pentagon asserts that no link was found.

Are you really contending that Hayes and the Weekly Standard (Kristol heads up the Project for the New American Century, which was calling for the invasion of Iraq back in the 90’s - strictly for US strategic self interest) are a superior interpreter of military research than the Pentagon researchers who did it?

 

[BamaRider]

You have insisted that you are part of a group of people that is morally superior to other Americans. You have repeatedly assigned labels to me in a hurtful fashion. And you have shown no hesitation to profess to know my heart and mind and assign the most hurtful of accusations. I cannot look into your heart and mind, but I can see your actions. I can also look up the definition of “elistist”. Tell me, since you profess yourself to be morally superior, why does that label not apply to you?

SoCal -have done no such thing. Have I drawn conclusions from your posts? Yes, because you can’t get simple answers from ya! So a guy is left to his own devices to figure out where ya coming from. Unlike you, I don’t talk in weather reports. So I’ll TELL you what I think based on all your posts brother. I think you are LIBERAL. If that hurts your feelings, I’m sorry, I suggest you think about changing idelogy if a liberal lable bothers ya. LOL

Morally superior? Me? I’ll not address that issue, but instead let the lurkers out here read back over the posts and see if they agree with that assessment.

Social Elitist as defined by Guy-Someone who sits in judgement by perception of social status, education, or resources. Though few in number, they belive they know whats best for the country. That the masses are too dumb to think for themselves, and are too easily swayed by neo con politicians. They don’t believe anyone can make it on his own, we need their help because they know what is best, and offer govt programs. Many of them can be found in academia, hollywood, and the offspring of “old money.” That would be folks like Ted Kennedy, who claims to be for the working man, but never had a job in his life. These people seem to congregate around the Boston area, San Francisco, and Seattle, but are not limited to those places LOL. Sometimes you have to work a little hard to smoke them out.

Contrary to what you might think, I don’t lable affluent Americans elitist. Most are hard working (or they don’t become wealthy) they are hammered by the media, and libs. Whenever someone like YOU says they are gonna raise taxes, they are the ones in the crosshairs. I feel for those folks.

Now I harbor no ill feelings for elistist, God Bless them, I just think what they want to do for the USA is bad. I am politicaly active in my local area. I will engage these people at every oppurtunity, and expose them for what they are. So put this in your pipe and smoke it brother, I do believe my politcal beleifs are morally superior, because it will help people do better, it will expire them to excel, and it will break the woe is me chord. Now let me be clear, that does NOT MEAN I AM MORALY SUPERIOR AS A PERSON. I respect my parents too much to ever go there.

I could be wrong, because this is the INTERNET, but I feel the tone of your thread is trying to take this into a which is a more Catholic idealogy, Conservatism or Liberalism. All I can tell ya I’m not going there. I’ll just say I have my beliefs.

Now I’m trying to get outta here, cause this thread is prolly gonna get turned off soon, I don’t see it being construction in the current incarnation.

Get me outta here Vern!

 

[ribozyme]

SoCal -have done no such thing. Have I drawn conclusions from your posts? Yes, because you can’t get simple answers from ya! So a guy is left to his own devices to figure out where ya coming from. Unlike you, I don’t talk in weather reports. So I’ll TELL you what I think based on all your posts brother. I think you are LIBERAL. If that hurts your feelings, I’m sorry, I suggest you think about changing idelogy if a liberal lable bothers ya. LOL

Trust me, he is NOT a liberal. (I can explain my definition of liberalism later to show why.) His posts convey some liberal sentiments for caring for the vulnerable in society who are not within a womb as such sentiments are similar to the ideas of John Rawls. Caring for the vulnerable in society is a higher priority than other liberal concerns such as abortion rights and gay marriage.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Trust me, he is NOT a liberal. (I can explain my definition of liberalism later to show why.) His posts convey some liberal sentiments for caring for the vulnerable in society who are not within a womb as such sentiments are similar to the ideas of John Rawls. Caring for the vulnerable in society is a higher priority than other liberal concerns such as abortion rights and gay marriage.

Who is more vulnerable than the child in the womb?

 

[BamaRider]

From the Socialized Medicine thread post #474
Quote:
*Originally Posted by rush176
I don’t think any Catholic or other Christian believes they should not help those in need. The big issue is should we allow the government to force us to do it their secular way or should we do it out of love for God in a Christian way. That is the biggest issue IMHO *

So Vern said-

Quote:

Absolutely right.

Charity benefits two people, the recipient and the donor (who gains grace and merit.)

But who gains grace and merit from forced donations, collected by the IRS?

Charity given by individuals and the Church is efficient and is done in such a manner as to safeguard the dignity of the recipient. Government programs are inefficient (and many are counter-productive) and demean the recipients.

Anyone who doubts that is invited to move into a government “housing project” in an inner city.

That pretty much sums up how conservatives regard the subject. And the difference in liberal thinking and the rest of us.

Now ribeye says this about the SoCal-

Trust me, he is NOT a liberal. (I can explain my definition of liberalism later to show why.) His posts convey some liberal sentiments for caring for the vulnerable in society who are not within a womb as such sentiments are similar to the ideas of John Rawls. Caring for the vulnerable in society is a higher priority than other liberal concerns such as abortion rights and gay marriage.

Weather report coming on the horizon.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

From the Socialized Medicine thread post #474
Quote:
*Originally Posted by rush176
I don’t think any Catholic or other Christian believes they should not help those in need. The big issue is should we allow the government to force us to do it their secular way or should we do it out of love for God in a Christian way. That is the biggest issue IMHO *

So Vern said-

That pretty much sums up how conservatives regard the subject. And the difference in liberal thinking and the rest of us.

Now ribeye says this about the SoCal-

Weather report coming on the horizon.

One has to wonder at the folks who don’t want their money taken in taxes to help the unfortunate but want to do it through “charity” have not already solved this problem through charity? When do you guys plan to start? It should be a none issue by now if in fact such “charity” works as the solution to mass starvation, lack of health care, lack of housing, funds to attend schools, etc. Your raise this as your defense to your own personal refusal to pay out the money in taxes for the less fortunate, but of course you all collectively prove it can’t be done, or it would be by now. Stop hiding behind charity.

 

[vern_humphrey]

One has to wonder at the folks who don’t want their money taken in taxes to help the unfortunate but want to do it through “charity” have not already solved this problem through charity?

For one thing, the government takes so much taxes, that little is left for charity.

For another, many government programs make the problem worse – as I have said before, anyone who doesn’t believe this is free to go and live in a government “housing project” in an inner city.

When do you guys plan to start?

One has to wonder at the folks who don’t want to give their money in charity to help the unfortunate but want to do it through taxes have not already solved this problem through taxes. When do you guys plan to start? And by that, I mean start doing things right and solving the problems, not making them worse with things like Cabrini Green.

It should be a none issue by now if in fact such “charity” works as the solution to mass starvation, lack of health care, lack of housing, funds to attend schools, etc. Your raise this as your defense to your own personal refusal to pay out the money in taxes for the less fortunate, but of course you all collectively prove it can’t be done, or it would be by now. Stop hiding behind charity.

If the government could do it, it would be done by now.

But it isn’t done – and it’s worse than when the government started.

 

[rlg94086]

One has to wonder at the folks who don’t want their money taken in taxes to help the unfortunate but want to do it through “charity” have not already solved this problem through charity? When do you guys plan to start? It should be a none issue by now if in fact such “charity” works as the solution to mass starvation, lack of health care, lack of housing, funds to attend schools, etc. Your raise this as your defense to your own personal refusal to pay out the money in taxes for the less fortunate, but of course you all collectively prove it can’t be done, or it would be by now. Stop hiding behind charity.

That’s a fair argument. So, I guess you also agree that the “War on Poverty” through taxation and liberal programs has been a complete failure.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s a fair argument. So, I guess you also agree that the “War on Poverty” through taxation and liberal programs has been a complete failure.

Actually, if you look at how the poverty rate was dropping before the “War on Poverty” kicked in and how it has leveled off since, and then compare things like the crime rate, the drug abuse rate, the out-of-wedlock births, the percentage of single-parent families and so on, it’s clear that government programs have not only failed, they have been counter-productive.

 

[ribozyme]

That’s a fair argument. So, I guess you also agree that the “War on Poverty” through taxation and liberal programs has been a complete failure.

That’s because the people who are in poverty do not have the capability to escape it on their own. They have to rely on a managerial state for their daily bread and water or else they will suffer.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s because the people who are in poverty do not have the capability to escape it on their own. They have to rely on a managerial state for their daily bread and water so else they will suffer.

That is a ridiculous statement. Poverty is not a static class of people or a permanent state of being.