How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Here Comes the Fairness Doctrine Reinsta   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Here Comes the Fairness Doctrine Reinstatement

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


50 posted 01-27-2009 03:27 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Ron,

          I am sad to hear you would have deleted my last three posts.  Near as I can tell, when I talk about Mike I am responding to actual statements he has made in this or in other threads that have said the things I say he has said.  I have made nothing up as far as I can see.  If something has gotten by me, nobody is more upset about it than I am.  I am not interested in putting words into people's mouths or distorting things that people have said.  I think it's a waste of time.  Why bother?  I can talk to myself on my own time.

     What you mean by armchair psychoanalysis, I don't know.  I understand Psychoanalysis well enough, and understand it is a highly specific set of procedures that have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm doing here.
If you suggest that I am imputing psychological motivation of some sort of unconscious type to either Jeff or Mike or anybody else, I would suggest that that is not so.  And to suggest that I crawl when I do so is basically insulting for no reason that I can understand.  

     If I want to interpret somebody's motivations, there is a fairly specific way of going about that.  One of the necessities for doing so is that there is a formal agreement on a therapeutic relationship, which I have and wish to have with nobody here.  Only under those conditions is is possible to make an interpretation that is anything other than a highly unwelcome invasion of personal psychological space.  An interpretation would involve current behavior, defenses  and past behavior and needs to have 1) overwhelming evidence; and 2) the client working with you; and 3) the client having almost gotten there on his own.

     My interest here is not in changing anybody's personality.  Mike and Jeff and even you are fine with me the way you are, bright and funny and thorny and thoughtful, all of you.  My conversations here are about social issues and political issues.  Sometimes we agree and sometimes not, and I do my best to disagree with as much respect as I can muster.  I do not believe I have said anything disrespectful to anybody here; not to Mike, whom I enjoy and whom I respect, and not to Jeffery, whom I have become fond of, and not to you, whom I like a great deal and whose point of view on social issues I find endlessly informative and entertaining as well.

     I certainly do have significant thoughts about everybody's motivations, most of all my own, and I make a point of keeping those to myself.  I understand that they are likely to be wrong, that they are untestable, and that they say more about me than they do about the other parties.  Not only do I wish to stay reasonably polite with others, I have no wish to show others as much of myself as sharing those thoughts would entail.

     The verb "to crawl" to my mind suggests an infant, a bug, a snake or something other than an adult making an adult comment.  If I have ever been less than an adult in talking with you or anybody else here, I am sorry for that.  I do I think your comment about what you consider my armchair analysis  was ill considered and insulting.  The ball is yours, and there's a limited amount I can do about this except to remind you that I have no wish at all to be nasty to anybody and that I am making no attempt to be so.  

     If you feel that I went out of my way to give somebody a hard time, I am absolutely ready to listen to you.  If you think I've insulted somebody, or actually hurt somebody's feelings by distorting the truth or speaking the truth in an unnecessarily blunt a fashion, I'm with you.  If you feel that I've changed the subject for no decent reason, let me know.

     In this case, I don't feel that I've done any of these things.  If I did think so, I'd say I thought that I'd done so and I'd quietly back off.  I've done that in the past when I've felt I was at fault, and if I felt that way now I would do it again in a heartbeat, but because what you're saying to me simply doesn't make sense to me in this case, I don't have any feeling sense of what I'd be agreeing to.

     I don't mind admitting being wrong and changing.  I do need to know and have a clear feeling of what it is I've just agreed to, and what it is that seems so wrong about it.  Near as I can tell, I made no personal attacks at all, nor did I intend any.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven  


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


51 posted 01-27-2009 03:37 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Threadbear,

           This document is from a Liberal source, so you will need to do some checking of your own to see how accurate it is.  It does fit in with what I understand to be the general situation, and I believe it to be worth looking at.  It's under 500 words, and it's about the composition of the detainees at Gitmo.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/02/08/744/57892


     I understand from your postings that your feelings are different, but I'd be interested in your response should you feel like sharing it.  I hope you're feeling better.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


52 posted 01-27-2009 08:02 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

First blush:   the link you post is over 3 years OUT OF DATE!

At one time, Gitmo had over 750 prisoners.  The total now is 250.  Most of the non-prosecutable inmates have actually been let loose, which you don't hear ONE mainstream liberal say.  Over 400 of them.  

The terrorists captured in Iraq STAY in Iraq for trial.  You don't hear that on national news either.  These terrorists rounded up were also organizers, leaders, and funding people for terrorist organizations.  So this website calls them non-violent, or whatever.  Totally bogus.  Some of the best busts of Al Q have come from Pakistani support, and they ARE in Gitmo.  Awaiting deposition.   If they were detained for information purposes and their folders state that, they were interrogated, cross referenced answers for congruity, then released.  Only the 'non-violent' ones that may have still-pertinent info are still in custody, along with the blatant terrorists whose murderous cases still need justice.  

I've heard at least three talking heads recently, all Liberals, use these same out of date numbers to justify closing Gitmo.  This is kind of like using the early war casualties in Iraq to today say we lost.  It just ain't so.

Look, I'm a pretty easy going guy, I hold no grudges against people I meet.  That said, I would prefer it, not demand it, that you be more careful in the future not to characterize Pip-Sters or label them with what you 'think' they think.'   No-one is inside another person's head.  Now, if you want to say, that you know of a Libertarian that believes such and such, LOL, I can get behind that!  Dig?  I still think you should start your own thread on Gitmo with a summary premise statement.  It's worth discussing, but by constantly changing topics in mid-thread could be perceived by some, perhaps, as poisoning a thread.  

I think you're a nice guy.  You're a good thinker, and I have respect for you.  I'm sure we could all down a few Heinekens or Guinesses, fire up a cigar and enjoy a round-table bar discussion if we were all in the same town.  Some of my best adversaries are friends; and some of my best friends are adversaries.
Jeff
wranx
Member Elite
since 06-07-2002
Posts 3778
Moved from a shack to a barn


53 posted 01-27-2009 08:28 AM       View Profile for wranx   Email wranx   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for wranx

I dunno....The fairness doctrine always seemed to me a slap at both the 1st amendment AND capitalism

Not very American in any case

Plus,*laughing* we've seen what happens when "toxic" products are bundled with healthy products, yes?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


54 posted 01-27-2009 10:28 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Near as I can tell, when I talk about Mike I am responding to actual statements he has made in this or in other threads that have said the things I say he has said.

We call those quotations, Bob. Except you weren't quoting Mike, of course. You were talking about Mike, and what you think Mike said and feels. Instead of talking about the Fairness Doctrine?

I thought about going back through your last few posts and highlighting everything that is not about the topic (or, at least A topic). But I don't have an hour to spend on it and, heck, you're a big boy who should be able to do it himself. This isn't about being accurate, this isn't about being respectful, this isn't about truth or insults or personal attacks. The minute you tell us that Mr. X is a nice guy, you've stopped talking about the post and starting talking about the posters. I could live with that. I know it's a blurry line and one not easily walked in what is essentially a social situation. But you rarely leave it there. You have to push it and tell us Mr. X is a nice guy even if he does beat his wife once in a while. No thread in these fora is about Mr. X, even if you keep trying to take it in that direction. Talk about the post, not the poster.

quote:
Bob:  I think that you may actually have the impression that if you can get rid of me, then these other questions will go away and that the good life in question will be had, not by me, but by you.

I apologize if you took the word "crawl" to mean anything other getting into a chair, Bob. If you prefer to plunk, dive, or bound, feel free to insert the verb of you choice. In any case, it's still psychobabble and it's still not appropriate here.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


55 posted 01-27-2009 11:39 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear Jeff,

quote:


First blush:   the link you post is over 3 years OUT OF DATE!




     The quotation is three years old.  It is not three years out of date.  


quote:


At one time, Gitmo had over 750 prisoners.  The total now is 250.  Most of the non-prosecutable inmates have actually been let loose, which you don't hear ONE mainstream liberal say.  Over 400 of them.  





770 detainees were brought to Gitmo; 500 were released, many of them under pressure. I mentioned that non-prosecutable detainees, by the way, had been released.  I confess to being further left than most mainstream Liberals, so whether that confirms or disconfirms your point I can't say.

quote:


The terrorists captured in Iraq STAY in Iraq for trial.  You don't hear that on national news either.  These terrorists rounded up were also organizers, leaders, and funding people for terrorist organizations.  So this website calls them non-violent, or whatever.  Totally bogus.




     The people arrested in Iraq stayed in Iraq for trial.  Even that is something of a misdirection.  The army as opposed to the administration had very different things to say about those people in Abu Gharib.  

     These should not be confused with the detainees in Gitmo, who were arrested in Afghanistan and in parts of Pakistan, as far as I understand it, where there as at least an outside chance that they might be distantly related to Al Qaeda folks and where, in fact, some percentage of them were.  Even Liberals will go so far as to acknowledge 10% to 30% may have been related to Al Qaeda or the Taliban; both organizations having been getting US backing, as I understand it, when they were anti-Soviet only a few years before.

     The original accusation against the inmates of Abu Gharib was that they were dangerous Al Qaeda operatives.  At the time, there were essentially no Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, and the population of Abu Gharib was being tortured to gain information about a non-existent organization and to get knowledge of weapons of mass destruction that had been destroyed years before.

     Whatever the people in Abu Gharib were, outside the occasional Sadam Hussein era official that was being kept there, it is unlikely that there was any information at all.  Even with these folks taken into account, the amount of useful and current intelligence gathered by the people who were convicted of the abuses there was not even remotely considered as a possible defense, not even right up through the General commanding the Prison.  And the army investigation was harsh.

quote:


Some of the best busts of Al Q have come from Pakistani support, and they ARE in Gitmo.  Awaiting deposition.   If they were detained for information purposes and their folders state that, they were interrogated, cross referenced answers for congruity, then released.  Only the 'non-violent' ones that may have still-pertinent info are still in custody, along with the blatant terrorists whose murderous cases still need justice.  




     If these were "busts" there would be a semblance of legality involved.  There would be formal charges that a prisoner might contest.  The prisoner would be able to call witnesses, would have access to counsel of his or her choice, would have the right to defend himself and would be safe from torture.  They would also have the right not to be held incommunicado and in isolation for periods of time up to years in length.  They would have the right of Habeas Corpus.

     Torture would not be a factor in any interrogation.

     These were not "busts."

     The cases of most of the people who were detained have been dealt with in such a way that they are unavailable to review behind the screen of "national Security."   If such a thing as a non-political court could be found, I'd be willing to have these cases reviewed there to see how necessary this sudden grip of National Security has been, and to what extent it is something that is a basic damage to the country and has been inappropriately applied.  I feel it's possible that it's been inappropriately applied here, and needs objective review.  I'm willing to say that it's possible I'm wrong, and to place the review into hands that all hands would find reasonably a-political.  This degree of secrecy is inappropriate for a democracy.

     How "murderous" these cases are, or how benign, if we are looking at them judiciously in either sense is certainly not something that can be pre-determined.  Nor should it be pre-determined by a monopoly of the presentation by one side of Judicial process, the prosecution, which has already succeeded in skewing the legal rules out of recognition in its favor.

     This is one of the things we fought a revolution to protect ourselves against, and we made a point of writing due process and no cruel and unusual punishment into the constitution.


quote:


I've heard at least three talking heads recently, all Liberals, use these same out of date numbers to justify closing Gitmo.  




     Old is not the same as out of date.

     The fact that these people were arrested or kidnapped up to six years ago doesn't mean that their imprisonment is ended.  For some, it continues.  That is not out of date.  The "release" of some of these prisoners has been to what places?  Often it has been to jails, which begs the question of their guilt or innocence, doesn't it?  The nature of the countries which own these jails has been what?  Syria, for some of them?  Egypt for some of them?  

     We may have gotten them away from the scrutiny of the American Public, but exactly where have we put them, Jeff?  I sure don't know.  These are people who have never had any guilt proven.

quote:


This is kind of like using the early war casualties in Iraq to today say we lost.  It just ain't so.




     Won or lost about events in Iraq makes so little sense to me that the whole concept seems slightly off base.  If there was a war, we won it in six weeks.  We've been wearing out our troops, our economy  and our welcome ever since.  Our troops have done all that we could have asked them and much much more, and I think that what I see of the way they've been treated with stop loss orders and worn out equipment and "You fight the war with the equipment you have," is far less than they deserve.  

     We did lose a lot, however, including the faith of the world in American leadership, and this needs to be rebuilt.
I believe we lost a lot in terms of civil liberties as well, and that the Legislative branch lost a lot to the Executive branch, and that the balance of powers has gotten out of wack.  I would like, for example, the business of signing statements to end, and I'd like to see legislation on the matter and judicial review of it.

     We may not have lost the war, but we haven't emerged yet, entirely, and we won't emerge unscathed.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

This link is more recent, should you wish a more recent link, and it deals with the issue of recidivism.  I would have thought differently, myself, given the radicalizing nature of the experience.
http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_61608.pdf


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


56 posted 01-27-2009 05:00 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


This seems like a fair edit, Ron.  It says everything I'd want to say.  Not having kept a copy of the original, I can say that everything that isn't there remains unnoticed in its absence.  Obviously it's better than I could have done.  Thank you.

[This message has been edited by Bob K (01-27-2009 08:09 PM).]

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Here Comes the Fairness Doctrine Reinsta   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors