Contributors

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Unbelievable

Here's another example of why the gun laws in this country need to be refined. So what if he's an old man. This is a classic case of someone who should not own a gun.

Part of me thinks, though, that this is what the gun folks want. That way they can point to the violence and say, "See? People need to defend themselves against this sort of thing." The more shootings, the merrier, eh? Maybe they think that Abad should have had a gun and then he could have shot back.

Oh, no, wait, that wouldn't do. He was Latino.

84 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a classic case of someone who should not own a gun.

Prior restraint? Is there any one thing you could point to prior to this incident that you could use to screen this one guy out?

That's leaving out that you don't know the facts of the case, yet you have already pronounced judgment.

Nikto said...

The same thing happened to a Yoshihiro Hattori, a Japanese kid who went to the wrong house in Louisiana on Halloween, 1992. The home owner's wife went crazy when she heard someone making noise outside (on Halloween -- oh, how scary!), the husband came out with a gun and shot the kid dead when he apparently misunderstood "Freeze!" as "Please" and the gun as a Halloween prop.

It caused a major international incident when the shooter was found innocent. A civil case followed, which the kid's parents won, but the guy never paid up (though he reportedly said he'd never own a gun again). Several Japanese kids died subsequently in various gun incidents thereafter, convincing many that American society is sick.

These are perfect examples of the slippery slope of thinking life is cheap and guns are the answer. First you can kill home invaders, then guys on your doorstep, then guys in driveway, then guys on the sidewalk in front of your house, then anyone who looks at you crosseyed on the street or in the bar.

Guns are the gateway drug to murder.

Anonymous said...

the shooter was found innocent.

Repeat that to yourself several times N.


Guns are the gateway drug to murder.

IF he was found innocent of shooting him, then he would also have been found innocent of bashing his head with a brick, stabbing him with a knife or ripping his heart out with his bare hands.

Lethal force is lethal force. If one is justified in employing lethal force - the actual tool of lethality is immaterial.

Gateway drug my ass.

Anonymous said...

Guns are the gateway drug to murder.

I think your tinfoil is wrapped more than a little too tight.

Anonymous said...

Joe Biden:

"Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now,"

So if "gun control" isn't about safety, what is it about? Are they attacking the rights of the law-abiding just for fun?

Mark Ward said...

Again, with the misconceptions. Because of your warped perceptions of the left, you think that they think that their actions will be universally problem solving. You would adopt this "all or nothing" mentality and ascribe it to them because that's how YOUR brains are wired. It's simply not true.

We are always going to have problems with violence in our culture. What Biden is talking about here is the possibility of saving one life. One life that will likely be saved if we refine our gun laws. To me, that's worth it.

Anonymous said...

you think that they think that their actions will be universally problem solving

What does this even mean?

We are always going to have problems with violence in our culture. What Biden is talking about here is the possibility of saving one life.

But, you, asshole, keep talking about 30,000 deaths, and "what are we gonna do about them?" And children with bullet ridden bodies. But even Biden admits that the chosen course of action Won't. Change. Those. Things!

So why do them?!?

They're wildly unpopular. (As demonstrated by guns flying off the shelves.) But you want to do them anyway.

So why do them?!?

There are major drawbacks, like disarming the law-abiding while not doing a damn thing to disarm criminals. (Roughly 93% of guns used in crimes are stolen.)

So why do them?!?

Law-abiding citizens are not the criminals, but they are the ones being targeted by these actions.

So why do them?!?

They are talking about actions which have been proven over and over and over again to lead to massive increases in the rates of violent crime. In essence, killing many to save one.

So why do them?!?

Why do them, Mark?!?

If those actions won't fix the problem(s) you keep bleating about, then WHY. FUCKING. DO. THEM?!?!?!?!?!?

Mark Ward said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOILKHmZBwc

Anonymous said...

All Mark can manage in answer to "Why?" is a non-sequitur? I think it's because he cannot honestly answer the question without exposing how evil his ideas actually are.

Then I'm going to speculate. The Administration is not making these proposals for reasons of safety (as Biden has admitted), but for reasons of control. A population that is able to defend itself from its own government cannot be wholly controlled by that government.

I should note that the Obama Administration in particular, and the Federal Government in general (yes, even under Bush) has already been trampling rights. The Obama is currently directly attacking the Rights of Free Exercise of Religion, Right to Life, and Right to Self Defense (in the form of Arms). There have also been attacks against property (For example, Kelo vs. New London, and EPA "wetlands" abuses). In Obama's latest proposals, he has personally added turning doctors into government spies.

Those are huge steps towards "a long train of abuses and usurpations," and "a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism".

But Mark agrees with this push. After all, he sees government as the solution to all problems. And for government to be able to enforce it's solutions, it must have the power to overcome resistance to those "solutions". Thus, the population must be weakened relative to the government.

Ironically, even as Marxy and his fellow "useful idiots" continue to push for a "one-size fits all" straightjacket answer, the private sector is getting even better at moving the opposite direction.

Mark Ward said...

A population that is able to defend itself from its own government cannot be wholly controlled by that government.

But we can't, though, assuming your paranoid fantasy would ever come true. This may be what you tell yourself because of your adolescent control issues but if the government wanted to, they could pretty much take over whatever they wanted to with the arsenal at their command. It's sheer folly to think that you could possibly defend yourself against our air power. Clearly, you don't know as much as you claim you do about the military.

So why doesn't the government, which you say is trying to take control of us, just do so? They have more than enough power. Don't delude yourself into thinking that you and your buddies sentinels of liberty routine is keeping "them" at bay. What could possibly be preventing them from sending us all to camps? I can't even imagine what it could be!!!

Ironically, even as Marxy and his fellow "useful idiots" continue to push for a "one-size fits all" straightjacket answer, the private sector is getting even better at moving the opposite direction.

Well, this makes no sense whatsoever. Just more blathering and mis-characterizations of Democrats. We have to be Marxists, right? Because otherwise you'd have to admit we're kicking your ass in capitalism:)

Anonymous said...

paranoid

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." "Let me sum up."

paranoia:

baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

So, in order for the possibility of tyranny in this country to be baseless, then it must somehow be IMPOSSIBLE for tyranny to happen here. But "somehow", you keep asserting that it's paranoid to think it can happen with EVER explaining why it cannot; despite being asked for such an explanation numerous times. (No, "because I, the Great and Power Markadelphia, say so" is not a valid explanation, nor a valid reason.)

So I'll ask you again: WHY do you think tyranny CANNOT happen here?

The men who designed our system of government certainly thought it could, and even IN SPITE OF of their design. Does that make men like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin paranoid too?

In short, put up, or shut up, Mark.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and BTW:

So why do them?!?

Anonymous said...

Another BTW…

Why is the Department of Homeland Security stockpiling billions of rounds of hollowpoint pistol ammunition? According to international law, it is illegal to use hollowpoint ammunition in warfare. So what could they use that much ammunition for?

Or is it "paranoid" to even ask such a question?

Mark Ward said...

then it must somehow be IMPOSSIBLE for tyranny to happen here.

The only way I see true tyranny (not the fake tyranny which you bemoan continually) happening here is if people like you are put in charge, NMN. You will begin by "helping" them morally and it will all spiral downwards from there.

The good news is that people who have achieved your level of zealotry usually end up in a bunker with a gun in their mouths so the tyranny won't last very long. And, given the fact that you can't seem to get enough people to vote for your crazy these days, it won't even come to that.

Speaking of your crazy, let me demonstrate why I don't waste my time with it.

Why is the Department of Homeland Security stockpiling billions of rounds of hollowpoint pistol ammunition?

Hmm...let's see...a little research turned this up.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp

Turns out the source of all of this is Alex Jones. You really want to hitch your wagon to that (ahem) star? I've heard variations of this story last summer. Last time around it was the National Weather Service. Now it's the DHS. Perhaps you might want to check some sources that are out of the bubble next time:)

I'm putting up a video later from Bill Maher last Friday and you should watch it and answers these questions. How much longer do you want to be a rube? If your faith in your ideology is so strong, why do you need to have it recharged on a continual basis?

Anonymous said...

From your snopes link:

TRUE: The SSA issued a Request for Quote for 174,000 rounds of hollow point bullets.

Wait. Something doesn't track here.

I could be wrong, but I could just swear that the letters "S", "S", and "A" are NOT the letters "D", "H", and "S". Are you trying to say that they are?

Also,

FALSE: The SSA is stocking up on ammunition in preparation for civil unrest.

Yet another response to a claim I DID NOT MAKE.

Care to try again?

Mark Ward said...

You claimed it was Homeland Security, not Social Security. You also intimated (in the way you guys always do) that the government was up to something and if we're not careful and vigilant, they will do...something.

Dum dum DAH!

Anonymous said...

The only way I see true tyranny (not the fake tyranny which you bemoan continually) happening here is if people like you are put in charge, NMN. You will begin by "helping" them morally and it will all spiral downwards from there.

You call that a rational argument? Name calling? Specifically the Der Untermensch tactic? More formally known as the ad hominem fallacy.

And since you apparently are unable to retain knowledge in long term memory:

Fallacy: unsound, erroneous, misleading, deceptive, FALSE.

Surprisingly, you were so intent on bearing false witness against me that you just admitted that tyranny is possible in this country. (Nevermind that you think it would self-destruct, contrary to all of recorded history proving your self-destruct scenario to be nothing but a paranoid fantasy.)

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

You claimed it was Homeland Security, not Social Security.

That's right. Gee, where else could I have gotten such a "delusional" idea?

You also intimated

What I said is that hollowpoint ammunition is illegal to use in war. Which is true. That rules out their use in warfare. So what is left? The most obvious possibility, especially in those quantities is domestic use. But I didn't make that claim because it's entirely possible that there are alternate legitimate uses that I haven't thought of, which is why I asked you if you had any reasonable ideas. (Yeah, me asking you for reasonable. I always hold out hope.)

Larry said...

You mean Mark has the reading comprehension of a crack-addled ferret? Color me shocked. And if it weren't for dishonesty, he'd have no honesty at all.

Anonymous said...

Another example of M's ignorance and dishonesty on display. What does it say M that you have to lie on every topic to maintain your hold on that bubble you reside in? Sheesh, that is pathetic...as usual.

Mark Ward said...

So, you don't really know why they are ordering hollow point bullets but you have a feeling it's for...something. This is assuming that the stories are true, of course. It'll be interesting to see where this story goes and what your reaction will be later on about it:)

It's utterly fascinating to observe how you guys operate. It confirms what Maher said last Friday (which I put up earlier tonight) about rubes parting with their money. It's a very strange reality indeed but, please, by all means, continue to talk more about it. People need to hear the truth!

Anonymous said...

…but you have a feeling it's for...something.

So let me see if I've got this right…

Your claim is that they're stocking up on ammo for absolutely no reason whatsoever?

You've already admitted that tyranny is possible in this country. So shouldn't there be some kind of insurance against the possibility? Something, like… say… a well armed populace or something?

Mark Ward said...

The best insurance we have is our system of checks and balances. Whatever armaments anyone has won't be enough anyway. I know your vanity won't allow this but you won't stand a chance against the government, dude.

More importantly, the system we currently have benefits the people that run it in so many ways that to change to some sort of monarchy or dictatorship (or whatever it is your paranoid fantasies imagine) would be disastrous for them. I don't think you're thinking clearly on this because you've been sucked in by carnival barkers like Bill Whittle, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.



You keep asking me why I think they are stocking up on hollow point ammunition (assuming the story is true) yet you brought it up. Why do you think they are doing it? You intimated they were doing it for a reason but then you backed off for the likely fear of sounding batshit. So what is it?

Anonymous said...

The best insurance we have is our system of checks and balances

Of which the Second Amendment is one.

Whatever armaments anyone has won't be enough anyway. I know your vanity won't allow this but you won't stand a chance against the government, dude.

You keep saying this, but it just ain't true. And you really, really, really have absolutely NO knowledge or experience with which to make such a claim.

Mark Ward said...

Perhaps you can explain to me, GD, how you are going to overcome US air power with your Bushmaster and survival seeds. And how's that tank battalion you have stored coming along? Your blue water navy?

Since your knowledge of military tactics is so much greater than mine, feel free to clog up my comments with your strategy on resisting the US military and doing so effectively.

Anonymous said...

The best insurance we have is our system of checks and balances. Whatever armaments anyone has won't be enough anyway.

Do you have to work hard to contradict yourself? Or does it just come naturally?

What you just told us is:

A) Checks and balances make tyranny impossible.

B) If the government decides to impose tyranny, it cannot be stopped.

So which is it? "Tyranny is not possible"? Or "too late. Just lie back and enjoy it"?

Mark Ward said...

You keep asking me why I think they are stocking up on hollow point ammunition (assuming the story is true) yet you brought it up. Why do you think they are doing it? You intimated they were doing it for a reason but then you backed off for the likely fear of sounding batshit. So what is it?

How much longer do you want to be a rube? If your faith in your ideology is so strong, why do you need to have it recharged on a continual basis?

Anonymous said...

I have something to say about that, but I decided to set it aside for the time being to focus on the more important point.

So which is it? "Can't happen"? Or, "Can't be stopped"?

Mark Ward said...

You're asking too simple of a question (along with doing the usual frame job so you can "win.") Try operating on a higher, evaluative level. Why would it happen here, given how much those that would be in a position to inflict your imagined tyranny would lose? What's the cost-benefit analysis of sending you and others like you to a camp, NMN? I'd rather have you out and about, blathering away and refusing to change so we can win more elections.

The people you vilify on a daily basis aren't interested in the things you think they are interested in...that's your own projection and paranoia talking. They, along with me, actually want more people, not less people, guiding the direction of this country and are actively encouraging more community involvement in solving our nation's problems. Tyranny implies absolutism and a Hobbesian view of government. Again, despite your paranoia, that's not the goal of people like me. Nor is it a fair characterization of the president who was once a community organizer after all:)

Larry said...

No, you're right, Mark. There can't be a reason. After all, this is the Federal government and wasting our money is what they do best. It's just Obama stimulatin' that part of the economy.

Juris Imprudent said...

You're asking too simple of a question

So you are refuting Occam's Razor? Of course you are - because you can't honestly answer the simple question, so you want to weasel your way out of it.

Anonymous said...

Since your knowledge of military tactics is so much greater than mine, feel free to clog up my comments with your strategy on resisting the US military and doing so effectively.


Amazing Mark, just amazing.

Your knowledge of the subject approaches zero - yet you feel you can speak authoritatively on the subject.

My knowledge on the subject is greater than zero - yet not only do you dismiss my opinion, you do so in a condescendingly derogatory manner.

I would tell you that if you shut up and listened once in a while you might learn something - but it's clear that you are proud of your ignorance.


I don't need to 'clog' up the comments with discussion of strategy. One sentence is enough to describe everything a critical thinker would need to understand.

Amateurs discuss strategy, professionals study logistics.

Anonymous said...

(Sorry for the delay. My OpenID provider has been having major problems.)

You're asking too simple of a question

But YOU are the one who keeps claiming that it Is. Not. POSSIBLE; thus the "paranoid delusion" phrase.

Not possible is one of only two binary options. (Basic law of logic number 3, The Law of Excluded Middle.) Either it IS possible, or it is NOT. There is no third option.

Cost/benefit doesn't change that. Nor does the fact that tyranny is never precisely the same each time it arises. Once again, you are attempting to elevate details above fundamental categories that those details cannot escape; an entirely illogical position.

It is a simple FACT of history that tyranny does arise in previously civilized states. Which means that an assumption that "civilization is forever" is a FALSE assumption.

So which is it? Either the U.S. Government cannot impose tyranny (which always requires physical force), or it can.

"Both" is not a valid, logical answer because that would be a direct violation of the second law of logic—The Law of Non-Contradiction. The clearest definition of this law that I've heard goes like this, "Two antithetical propositions cannot both be true and not true at the same time and in the same sense." Or in short, A cannot be Not(A). Or as in this case Possible cannot be Not(Possible).

Finally, Juris is absolutely right about Occam's Razor.

Mark Ward said...

Wow, GD, that was really...something. Now perhaps you can actually answer my question. I'll add in this one: how do you plan on defending against a drone attack?

"Both" is not a valid, logical answer because that would be a direct violation of the second law of logic

I love how you guys try to use logic to explain what is nearly always illogical: human behavior. History is filled with events that defy logic and simply can't be explained. Yet here you are...asserting that if there are any new gun laws or changes to the old ones, the government is going to become tyrannical. That's panic mongering, NMN, and, sadly, a common strategy that you guys use all the time.

The good news is that it's not working anymore. The American people know that you guys are, in fact, most illogical and well, downright hysterical. Where you fail here, ironically, is to explain the logic in pursuing absolute power in the first place. Why would they do it? You're still not asking the right question.

Anonymous said...

asserting that if there are any new gun laws or changes to the old ones, the government is going to become tyrannical.

That's not what "possible" means, Mark.

possible:

1. capable of existing, taking place, or proving true without contravention of any natural law

2. capable of being achieved

3. n/a

4. that may or may not happen or have happened; feasible but less than probable

5. logic (of a statement, formula, etc) capable of being true under some interpretation, or in some circumstances.

It's fascinating how you redefine and twist words to build your straw man so you can attack it instead of the actual argument.

And yes, as I've pointed out too many times to count, straw man is a fallacy.

Fallacy: unsound, erroneous, misleading, deceptive, FALSE.

You have no argument. You lose.

Mark Ward said...

You have no argument. You lose.

At what exactly?

The problem you have here, NMN, is that you want the rest of the world (me included) to be as afraid as you guys are of everything. Honestly, you're like a bunch of hysterical old ladies. Anything is possible in your world and if that's true (gasp!), then it's GOING TO HAPPEN SOON!!! AHAHAHAH!!! LOOK OUT!!!!

Yep, you are steaming with logic, sir:)

Anonymous said...

Now perhaps you can actually answer my question

Again, the problem with being an ignoramus is that you don't have a clue that you are an ignorant fool.

I answered your questions, apparently a one sentence answer is too complex for you. I'll pare it down to one simple word to keep you from being too confused.

LOGISTICS.

Anonymous said...

Apparently Mark is also blind to what it means for the government to use tanks, drones, attack aircraft and ships against a large segment of the population, and how that changes the rules of the game.

Anonymous said...

Yep, you are steaming with logic, sir:)

… sigh …

Here we go again…

Knowledge = In The Bubble

Logic = Lying

Science = a Right-Wing Conspiracy

History = Distortion

What makes you think our system of "checks and balances" can accomplish anything? After all, it was designed by men who were "like a bunch of hysterical old ladies."

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
— Patrick Henry, speech given Jun 5, 1788

What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that [the] people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms … The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
— Thomas Jefferson

When all you have left is name calling and forced mockery, that's a sign that you've lost the argument. Furthermore, it's a sign that somewhere deep inside you know it but refuse to admit it.

Mark Ward said...

Well, there's your problem, NMN. All you are thinking about is winning arguments. I'm discussing solutions to problems and how best to implement them. Of course, this is why you guys lose elections these days.

Anonymous said...

That's your problem, Mark. You can't even handle defining what problems are involved. Without defining the problem it's IMPOSSIBLE to even discuss a solution, let alone come up with a "cure" that isn't worse than the "disease."

Avoiding even the POSSIBILITY of tyranny was foremost on everyone's mind during the framing of the Constitution; not just the men in Congress, but everyone debating whether or not the Constitution should be adopted. And modern tyrannies are VASTLY more controlling and deadly than anything the Founders could have EVER seen or read about.

But you're happy to hack away at it with absolutely no regard for the consequences, blithely counting on the resulting tattered and shredded parchment you treat like a crazy uncle to somehow magically arrange things so that "no bad thing can happen here."

BTW, when the facts and logic are on your side, you're SUPPOSED to win the argument. And the person who changes their beliefs to more closely align with reality ALSO wins, even if they lost the argument.

Anonymous said...

BTW, Since Joe Biden admitted that the proposed actions don't solve even the problems YOU have been focusing on, then why do them?

Mark Ward said...

Avoiding even the POSSIBILITY of tyranny was foremost on everyone's mind during the framing of the Constitution;

The world is a very different place since the time the Constitution was written. Recall that this was an era when we had people like Thomas Hobbes arguing in favor of absolutism as being the only logical solution to government. How many monarchies are there around today? Heck, the word "economics" wasn't even in common use at the time.

We don't live in that world anymore. Since you have a hostile fear of progress, it makes sense that you have the feelings that you do but applying them to today, given all the changes we have experienced in the last 200+ years, is completely illogical.

Anonymous said...

Really?!? You can look around the world today and claim that human nature has improved?!?!?

It really, really must suck to be you.

Mark Ward said...

In some ways, human nature is different, although being an advocate of John Locke I would think you would be a little more positive. But I'm not talking about human nature. I'm talking about how the political structures of the world have changed. We have many absolute monarchies running around these days?

Anonymous said...

Absolute monarchy differs from limited monarchy, in which the monarch’s authority is legally bound or restricted by a constitution; consequently, an absolute monarch is an autocrat.

An autocracy is a system of government in which a supreme political power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control.

Both totalitarianism and military dictatorship are often identified with, but need not be, autocracy. Totalitarianism is a system where the state strives to control every aspect of life and civil society. It can be headed by a supreme dictator, making it autocratic, but it can have a collective leadership such as a commune or soviet. Likewise, military dictatorships.

Because autocrats need a power structure to rule, it can be difficult to draw a clear line between historical autocracies and oligarchies.

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (archo), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control.


Hmmm. How many Autocracies, Oligarchies or other forms of totalitarian government are running around the world these days?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_autocracy_present.png

Anonymous said...

gd is spot on.

The map he linked showed only current autocracies. But that site also included a fascinating map of all the autocracies during the 20th Century.

Mark, "political structures" are the result of human nature acting in aggregate. Can you seriously (and honestly) look at a map like this and say the human nature and political structures have inherently improved?

Note: both maps were created in 2007. Since then, the number of autocracies has been growing in the middle east and Russia's current leadership is also flexing its muscles.

Mark Ward said...

And yet in your analysis, you fail to include other factors in the shaded countries. Are these countries former colonial entities? Are they as developed as Western civilizations? Are they all in the Global South? What is their GDP? How influential are they in the Age of Globalization?

So, NMN, the world of the 17th and 18th century, in terms of tyranny, is no longer the dominant form of government. I know it helps to justify your paranoia (and GD's) to think this is the case but facts say otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Are the countries free because they are developed or are they developed because they are free?

Anonymous said...

you fail to include other factors in the shaded countries.

Why do those factors matter? Or put another way, what makes those factors relevant?

You are trying to argue that conditions for tyranny are no longer what they were in the 18th century. According to the results in the 20th century, the conditions (i.e., factors) allowing or causing the rise of tyranny are now worse! Thus, your argument does not fit reality.

Mark Ward said...

Are the countries free because they are developed or are they developed because they are free?

Good question. Countries become free when they embrace democratic values and liberal economic theory. Once the capitalist cat is out of the bag, so to speak, it's hard to go back to absolutism or tyranny because there is so much prosperity. That's why countries like Cuba (shaded on your map) are changing their ways. Recall that Castro said that "The Cuban model doesn't work for us anymore."

That's why I don't worry so much about the United States. There is too much at stake, money wise, to slide into tyranny. The powerful people that run this country and would likely be the only ones capable of such tyranny profit too much from the system we have now. Not to mention the fact that our value system is way past that sort of thing. We are the greatest country that has ever been seen on this planet.

Mark Ward said...

According to the results in the 20th century,

Um, we live in the 21st century now. Even the conditions that were present in the 20th century aren't present now. We no longer operate in a world that can be defined by realism, NMN. Nor do we live in one that can be defined by liberalism either. After all, neither predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. How did that event jibe with your world view?

Anonymous said...

Once the capitalist cat is out of the bag, so to speak, it's hard to go back to absolutism or tyranny because there is so much prosperity. That's why countries like Cuba…

What a PERFECT example… of how totally ignorant you are. Two words: Andy Garcia

Garcia says his film recaptures "a time when Havana was the Paris of the Caribbean, a vibrant, elegant and cultured city threatened and subverted by violence and social injustice, then torn apart by a revolution that became misguided and, finally, betrayed."

Anonymous said...

We no longer operate in a world that can be defined by realism

What more really needs to be said?

Anonymous said...

Okay, maybe this can be said:

Denial

Anonymous said...

I just finished reading an excellent article on the state of the "checks and balances" Mark thinks are still in operation:

Assassin in Chief?

In short, the Constitution provides that an American citizen must be tried and punished according to the judicial process provided for the crime of treason, not according to some newfangled and artificial executive "process" fashioned by nameless collection of lawyers.



If John Brennan is confirmed as CIA director, and the killings of U.S. citizens continue based on this whitewash of a white paper, then the U.S. Senate will have yielded up to the president without even a fight the power to kill citizens without judicial due process -- a power that has been unknown in the English-speaking world for at least 370 years.

Juris Imprudent said...

I'm discussing solutions to problems and how best to implement them.

Good GOD, do you really think that about yourself? Are you fucking serious?

I guess you aren't even honest with yourself; in that light, the dishonesty that runs through all of your interactions with us makes some kind of sense.

Juris Imprudent said...

Case in point...

Recall that this was an era when we had people like Thomas Hobbes arguing in favor of absolutism as being the only logical solution to government.

Hobbes was dead for more than 100 years prior to our Revolution, yet here you address him as a contemporary. Nor do you accurately describe Hobbes' argument (though you do a fine job of making a strawman with it). Nor was Hobbes a bugbear let alone a guiding light for the Founding generation.

It certainly has nothing to do with discussing how we should be implementing solutions.

Mark Ward said...

What more really needs to be said?

Well, you could start by explaining the political ideology known as realism which is what I was talking about.

Anonymous said...

After all, neither predicted the fall of the Soviet Union

Uhhh.... butterfly effect. Does not negate a valid model.

Physics and biology are the rules that a horse race operate under - that doesn't mean if they are unable to predict the winner every time we have to through them out.

Juris Imprudent said...

Well, you could start by explaining the political ideology known as realism which is what I was talking about.

Do you mean the school of foreign policy?

You do realize Kissinger was a realist. Have the lib/progs rehabilitated him too in their latest version history? Cause I remember what the left/Dems had to say about him when he was actually in power.

Anonymous said...

Philosophical Realism:

Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. Realism may be spoken of with respect to other minds, the past, the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the material world, and thought. Realism can also be promoted in an unqualified sense, in which case it asserts the mind-independent existence of a visible world, as opposed to idealism, skepticism, and solipsism. Philosophers who profess realism state that truth consists in the mind's correspondence to reality.

Philosophical Realism:

5a. the doctrine that universals have a real objective existence. Compare conceptualism, nominalism.

5b. the doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception.

Cultural: An approach to philosophy that regards external objects as the most fundamentally real things, with perceptions or ideas as secondary. Realism is thus opposed to idealism.


Nope, no reason to change my reaction.

Political Realism

Islam negates Assumption 4 via Assumption 3, which still holds, as do Assumptions 1 and 2. So…

Nope, still no change. Nothing more needs to be said.

Mark Ward said...

I am talking about the school of political realism and it did fail to predict the fall of the Soviet Union. So did the liberal school of thought. Each had their neat little model of how the world was and, as reality ended up illustrating, were highly flawed. This is why I am more of a constructivist when it comes to examining international and political trends, specifically the issue of tyrannical governments and the like. I'd wager that none of you thought Gorbachev would simply give up.

Anonymous said...

I am talking about the school of political realism and it did fail to predict the fall of the Soviet Union.

Read gd's post. Read it again. Do it 20 times. Research the phrase "butterfly effect". LEARN Something!

Failure of an observer to understand all the facts does not invalidate the methodology. If it did, we would have been forced to abandon the scientific method due to the constant failed experiments which occur under that system.

As long as you insist on arguing from a position of willful ignorance, I will continue to point and laugh.

Mark Ward said...

Those are very nice comments about me, NMN. Since you view yourself as superior to me regarding political analysis, why don't you write a paragraph or two on why the Soviet Union failed? And why both realism and liberalism failed to predict its demise? This is Global Politics 101 so you shouldn't have too much of a problem:)

Mark Ward said...

The same goes for you, GD.

Anonymous said...

Once again, you're demanding that we do your work for you.

No. Not gonna do it.

Juris Imprudent said...

This is why I am more of a constructivist when it comes to examining international and political trends, specifically the issue of tyrannical governments and the like.

Are you claiming that these were the only people that foresaw the fall of the Soviet Union?

Mark Ward said...

You don't want to do ANY work, NMN:) I, on the other hand, have nothing to prove because the reality of the world does the job for me.

Mark Ward said...

Are you claiming that these were the only people that foresaw the fall of the Soviet Union?

No. I'm saying that the failure of both liberalism and realism to predict the fall of the Soviet Union pushed people to start thinking outside of the box and realize that the world was moving on.

Anonymous said...

the reality of the world does the job for me.

So let me summarize your arguments:

1) The state of politics which grows from human nature has changed since the Constitution was written.

When shown that there was more and worse tyranny during the 20th Century:

2) Human nature/politics has magically changed in only 12 years.

Reality is saying something about your arguments, but that something is decidedly not kind.

Denial

Mark Ward said...

Why did the Soviet Union fall, NMN?

Anonymous said...

What relevance does that have to whether or not tyranny can arise in this country?

Mark Ward said...

If you want this conversation to continue, you're going to have to answer the question.

Anonymous said...

Asking an irrelevant question then refusing to continue if it's not answered.

Interesting way to set up a Brave Sir Robin.

Mark Ward said...

I'm not going anywhere, NMN. Answer the question...why did the Soviet Union fall?

Anonymous said...

What relevance does that have to whether or not tyranny can arise in this country?

Mark Ward said...

Answering a question with a question is a dodge, NMN. Why did the Soviet Union fall, NMN?

Anonymous said...

Read your own comment, Mark. Now apply it to yourself.

What relevance does that have to whether or not tyranny can arise in this country?

Mark Ward said...

Yet another way you are like the seventh graders I have the pleasure of teaching on occasion. They are under the mistaken impression that I will give in to their continued dodging from doing their work. They learn the hard way that I am not your average adult:)

Why did the Soviet Union fail?

Anonymous said...

What relevance does that have to whether or not tyranny can arise in this country?

Mark Ward said...

Why did the Soviet Union fail?

Juris Imprudent said...

Why should anyone answer your questions M when you won't answer theirs?

Mark Ward said...

The fact that your comment was composed entirely of (yet another) question is your answer.