“I believe the assumption that those most strongly advocating something, should be willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause they advocate… Is not an unreasonable position.”

Of course it isn’t — unless of course you insist there is only one way to do so, and that that one way is to strap on a rifle and head over to Iraq.

Why don’t you me us in on some of the causes you support, and I’ll decide if you’re supporting those causes in an appropriate way.

By Jeff G on 07.01.05 22:12

That should read, “why don’t you let me in on some of the causes you support…”

By Jeff G on 07.01.05 22:14

I dont think you want to go there.
First off I never said that the only response to supporting the war is to strap on a rifle and go to Iraq, but considering the shortfall in recruitment, why NOT? But sure I will happy to.
I have a number of causes, including Civil Rights, and have spent at least 20% or my adult life working for organizations that promote Civil Rights, including helping Welfare Mothers get off of Welfare through Job Training. I also started a project called Project Apollonia to donate School Books to Poor Children here in Costa Rica. You want me to go on? I would be happy to Jeff. I WALK THE WALK.

By David Anderson on 07.01.05 22:18

20% of your adult life? Does that mean that for 80% of your adult life you were a ChickenCIVILRIGHTShawk?

And what good is donating books to poor children if they can’t read. Why aren’t you out there teaching them to read? Or better, why are they poor? Giving them your time is one thing — but it’s your MONEY that they NEED.

Bottom line is, the argument is ridiculous, and spirals into this very kind of finger-pointing nonsense. And anyone who continues to profess it is either being intellectually dishonest or else is a dullard.

Which are you?

By Jeff G on 07.01.05 22:33

Does this mean you have to accept everything I say because I did serve and I do support what we are doing. Rubbish. I have to make sense in what I say, or I am just another blowhard. You seem to be simply serving up a milder, less spit-dribbling version of the chickenhawk argument. I hope I am wrong, but fear I am right.

By Major John on 07.01.05 22:34

I am not even going to justify that with an answer Jeff. You have not dissapointed at all. And to answer your question, I am niether. I am a person who thinks for himself, something a lot of you on the Right forgot how to do a long time ago.

By David Anderson on 07.01.05 22:36

And if you want to continue the argument, bring it to my Blog, I have no intention of continuing this “battle,” on Jack’s Blog.

By David Anderson on 07.01.05 22:37

Oh, and the 20%, that is 20% of my time, PERIOD. I live it every day. I contribute to what I believe in every day. People like the Commissar know that.

By David Anderson on 07.01.05 22:39

I can’t believe you wasted so much time posting this and your follow-up comments when you could have been out there helping a welfare child or delivering another book.

DON’T YOU CARE?

By Jeff G on 07.01.05 22:42

I am not even going to justify that with an answer Jeff. You have not dissapointed at all.

Why not? Howso? My question and examples simply point out the faults in the logic of YOUR argument — and are followed up by the quite reasonable conclusion that this line of reasoning does no one any good. It is both logically faulty and rhetorically cynical. And, like the Iraq war, it pulls away resources from the REAL debate, which centers around HOW BUSH LIED!

By Jeff G on 07.01.05 22:47

Oh, and the 20%, that is 20% of my time, PERIOD. I live it every day. I contribute to what I believe in every day. People like the Commissar know that.

Consorting with Communists, now? Oh, well, so much for civil rights.

(I know the Commissar is not a Communist, by the way. He’s just a sucky leftist sycophant, but hey, one that PULLS HIMSELF UP BY HIS BOOTSTRAPS! VIVA EL PROLETARIAT!)

(And even then, I’m sure he’s never taken up a gun and fought alongside Che, the hypocrite.)

By Chadster on 07.02.05 01:29

Dear Jeff G. in particular and Chadster (what an intelligent calling card):

I want to start this by saying I don’t know David and have never posted on his Blog before. Yet, his posts on Jack’s page seem thoughtful and well considered. On that note:

Look, I don’t know where you two came from, but be civil. Or, have you forgotten what that means? You believe that because someone cares about humanity, about the civil liberties we all share, the plight of the poor, …. this is very difficult for me to believe, but…your own words express your disgust with: humanity as a whole, a humanity that, according to you, requires no help or compassion, the poor, children, those who actually feel compassion and lend a hand (I can only consider that you both have never lifted a finger for another human being, ever, unless you personally recieved a benefit in return) nor do you believe in justice, the justice of causes, such as maintaining and creating civil liberties — liberties eroding day by day under our current administration and this War for Profit. You should consider this: Our forefathers, those that established this form of government, they believed in causes, they felt compassion for their fellow human being adn they were CIVIL. Where David actually walks the walk, its obvious you two have little to say to your own benefit in return. Incredibly selfish behavior…you people are young! Why? Explain it to me? Where did you lose your compassion, or did you have any, ever, where did you lose your idealism, or did your ever have any…I see it so often on the university campus’s. The memememe generation..the what are you going to do for me generation…the what do I get out of it generation…it’s a crying shame and a tragic loss in the long-term. That, alone, makes me even more fearful for this country, and I am not implying you should army-up and go to war….having you two in a battle would be putting the guns in the wrong hands. You might well be likely to get your friends killed in order to save your own rear-ends, because, there wouldn’t be anything in it for you…

By Sinequanon on 07.02.05 10:31

Where did you lose your compassion, or did you have any, ever, where did you lose your idealism, or did your ever have any…

Well, one time, at band camp…

By Chadster on 07.02.05 21:32

Interesting…

I read with interest this guest commentary by Pennywit on Random Fate. He seemed to go out of the way to criticize me for pointing out the hypocrisy of those who strongly advocate the war in Iraq, but are unwilling…

By In Search Of Utopia on 07.02.05 21:57

Thank you Sinequanon. I would just like to add one thing, just for shits and grins as we used to say. Right below this post, there is one talking about how the troops returning home are getting screwed. The Right makes a big deal out of supporting the Troops, yet I have not seen ONE comment to that post, or ONE post on a Major Right Wing Blog expressing outrage over this. That is part of what I mean by supporting the war effort. These people are Not supporting the war, or the troops, they are supporting THEIR President, and a failed policy. Now come back with a smug answer on that one Chadster, or better yet a few links showing how you SUPPORT THE TROOPS.

By David Anderson on 07.02.05 22:27

Let’s see…I respond to a critique of MY post by asking a series of hypotheticals that pressure the logic of THIS post, and for my troubles I’m told to be civil by one who follows that up with the accusation that I don’t care about the poor, the disenfranchized, civil liberties, this country, the founding fathers, my would-be comrades in arms…am I leaving anything out, sinequanon?

The cognitive dissonance in that sanctimonious rant from someone who can’t even be bothered to follow the original link back to my site — where I make a plea, in the linked post, for civil discourse — is ASTOUNDING.

But enjoy the cheap grace, pal. That David would follow up by THANKING YOU for leveling those accusations at me — me, a person you have never met and whose site you have never visited — then make a blanket statement himself that because I and others haven’t commented on another of his posts, we somehow don’t really support the war — even as he pretends to be so above the fray — is a testament to HIS own sniveling insecurities.

David is a fraud. He tries to play the hurt thinker looking for a real debate, but what he supports are arguments that seek to sully the characters of those he engages rather than to address their points.

In that regard, he’s fairly typical of his online brethren.

By Jeff G on 07.03.05 00:52

Let’s see…I respond to a critique of MY post by asking a series of hypotheticals that pressure the logic of THIS post, and for my troubles I’m told to be civil by one who follows that up with the accusation that I don’t care about the poor, the disenfranchized, civil liberties, this country, the founding fathers, my would-be comrades in arms…am I leaving anything out, sinequanon?

The cognitive dissonance in that sanctimonious rant from someone who can’t even be bothered to follow the original link back to my site — where I make a plea, in the linked post, for civil discourse — is ASTOUNDING.

But enjoy the cheap grace, pal. That David would follow up by THANKING YOU for leveling those accusations at me — me, a person you have never met and whose site you have never visited — then make a blanket statement himself that because I and others haven’t commented on another of his posts, we somehow don’t really support the war — even as he pretends to be so above the fray — is a testament to HIS own sniveling insecurities.

David is a fraud. He tries to play the hurt thinker looking for a real debate, but what he supports are arguments that seek to sully the characters of those he engages rather than to address their points.

In that regard, he’s fairly typical of his online brethren.

By Jeff G on 07.03.05 00:53

Let’s see…I respond to a critique of MY post by asking a series of hypotheticals that pressure the logic of THIS post, and for my troubles I’m told to be civil by one who follows that up with the accusation that I don’t care about the poor, the disenfranchized, civil liberties, this country, the founding fathers, my would-be comrades in arms…am I leaving anything out, sinequanon?

The cognitive dissonance in that sanctimonious rant from someone who can’t even be bothered to follow the original link back to my site — where I make a plea, in the linked post, for civil discourse — is ASTOUNDING.

But enjoy the cheap grace, pal. That David would follow up by THANKING YOU for leveling those accusations at me — me, a person you have never met and whose site you have never visited — then make a blanket statement himself that because I and others haven’t commented on another of his posts, we somehow don’t really support the war — even as he pretends to be so above the fray — is a testament to HIS own sniveling insecurities.

David is a fraud. He tries to play the hurt thinker looking for a real debate, but what he supports are arguments that seek to sully the characters of those he engages rather than to address their points.

In that regard, he’s fairly typical of his online brethren.

By Jeff G on 07.03.05 00:53

Let’s see…I respond to a critique of MY post by asking a series of hypotheticals that pressure the logic of THIS post, and for my troubles I’m told to be civil by one who follows that up with the accusation that I don’t care about the poor, the disenfranchized, civil liberties, this country, the founding fathers, my would-be comrades in arms…am I leaving anything out, sinequanon?

The cognitive dissonance in that sanctimonious rant from someone who can’t even be bothered to follow the original link back to my site — where I make a plea, in the linked post, for civil discourse — is ASTOUNDING.

But enjoy the cheap grace, pal. That David would follow up by THANKING YOU for leveling those accusations at me — me, a person you have never met and whose site you have never visited — then make a blanket statement himself that because I and others haven’t commented on another of his posts, we somehow don’t really support the war — even as he pretends to be so above the fray — is a testament to HIS own sniveling insecurities.

David is a fraud. He tries to play the hurt thinker looking for a real debate, but what he supports are arguments that seek to sully the characters of those he engages rather than to address their points.

In that regard, he’s fairly typical of his online brethren.

By Jeff G on 07.03.05 00:53

Ohmygoodness…

Jeff…You’ve made a terrible error. I’m not your pal in the sense of having an additional extruding appendage or 3 between my legs slowing down my santimonious dissonant cognitive processes. (No insult intended to the male populace or you. I just couldn’t help myself! My apologies gentlemen!)

So, lets break this down, shall we?
f) Prior to making my previous statement, I read each post 3 times on this site and this time read them all again and each of your “five” repetitious posts on this site today. And, I followed the links backwards in order to get to…. guess where????… yes indeed, your post yesterday before I wrote a word on July 1st.
u) I took personal offense at your treatment of David. Had he made the kind of disparaging remarks you did yourself, my original comments would have been posted to David. Whom, by the way, I do not know either, so take it easy ….oh, sweetheart pal of mine. I don’t necessarily agree with some of David’s points either because they are too generalized. But, I understood his intent and yours for that matter.
c) Just a Sanctimonous FYI Alert: I have a personal disgust and disregard for anyone espousing ultra-nationalistic tendencies or leanings. (These people create or promote dictorships by their activities and beliefs … check your history. These raging narcissistic power-rangers also absorb propaganda like a sponge. They are ‘true believers’ and are very scary in my view. Check: dictatorship; fascism; etc.)
k) Sanctimonious Alert #2: Let me make my position clear, if I haven’t before: I do not, nor have I ever supported the War in Iraq. Such reasons are bearing fruit relative to evidence of corruption and dishonesty in our government’s actions and ultimately their intent. (FYI, I admit I neglescted to reread my own previous post.)
o) sigh…this is doubtless doing little good…I was thrown off Cadillac TightAss Joe’s sight because I dared to make a single, once in a lifetime, comment that didn’t align with his own (ofcourse he replied to the post when I supposedly couldn’t see it anymore..LMAO)…so, posting back to your original article may have similar results. So, I won’t bother as this is my last post ever on this topic here. Sanctimonious ALERT #3: I like to go to other sites with viewpoints outside my own perameters…those with reasonable views ofcourse, not insanity; although I have read a good amount from those sites too, as well as books and research, from the full realm of the spectrum, trying to understand their viewpoints. I won’t however post that idiocy on my site.
f) Okay…from Jeff: “The cognitive dissonance in that sanctimonious rant from someone who can’t even be bothered to follow the original link back to my site (checked off list)– where I make a plea, in the linked post, for civil discourse — is ASTOUNDING.” (NOTE TO JEFF: my remarks were primarily due to the tone of your post and the pick,pick,picking you did to David, which lead me to write what I wrote to you…much more so than your original posts theories…)
f) Wow, Jeff. that was a mouthful… :-) …let’s see, my 50-pound Oxford Unabridged Dictionary says “cognition” (noun) or “cognitive” (must be something about the old noggin’)(adj) means “the acquiring of knowledge, through thought, experience, and the senses.” JEFF!!! Thank You!!! That is so damned sweet! Know what, Jeff? That is exactly what my entire web site is about… the reason it was created in the first place. To acquire knowledge and impart it in return using thought, my plethora and wide-ranging experience and my sensitive senses (all six of them)… all in combination! What a concept. Back to my discovery of your comment… hmmm… … ‘dissonance’… huh, sounds like discordant… is that the full word for the terminology: don’t ‘dis me man!’? You know, words that begin with ‘dis’ generally negate the words in conjunction to them, you know that don’t you? It’s latin for ‘not’ or the reverse of, or seperation or removal. Hmmm…Oxford says: dissonance (noun) or dissonant (adj) is without harmony; discordant - HEY, I was right! I know you didn’t mean that in a negative way, so I’ll just let it go since you might not know the meaning and I’ll take the ‘dis’ part off the word. Next: huh… “Sanctimonious”… I’ve never had anyone say that to me before (so, really, thanks for that first bugger-off in my life, a nice little life-lesson leading to eventual wisdom when I’m as old as Methusela), … (but let’s not be hasty, there surely is a golden lining to this wonderful combination of ball-breaking words in his sentence -looking down, whew, I don’t have those! That could hurt!)… lemme see, the root word for sanctimonious, which is an adjective, is sanctity, a noun, meaning “saintliness or holiness; the fact of being sacred or inviolable; anything held sacred; virtue; inviolability; happiness; godliness.” I JUST KNEW IT! I AM A GODDESS! I’m an INVIOLATE Virgin again! (Oh, Boy!) …So, to summerize, you stated that, in essence, I am a: “gold-gilded goddess to whom you will worship at the shrine of her knowledge, experience and bath in her senses due to the quality and state of her ’sonance’ as she astounds you over and over and over again…and because she is named “The Howitzer of Enlightenment!”, a title to which you someday aspire. Did I get that right Jeff? You are such a sweet talker, putting me on a pedestal like that! Ofcourse, I live to teach you… And, finally….
f) In response to your response: I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings… It seems like I did, and well, maybe I was too harsh. Maybe this new response is too harsh also. Maybe you aren’t a self-centered individual disparging the good someone else has done with and in his life. Maybe you just need to surround yourself with more than one narrow viewpoint at a time that seeks to pinpoint people in such a manner when they are just trying to make their ‘real’ contribution to the world. Maybe you could absorb compassion by doing some of David’s work so you have a better understanding of what he does to ‘contribute’ rather than be part of the problem. Maybe you could absorb diversity and grow from the experience. And, maybe, just maybe…you might even see who it is that has their finger …on …your …pulse.

With Love and Peace,
Sinequanon, “The Howitzer of Enlightenment”

By Sinequanon on 07.03.05 07:01

Now come back with a smug answer on that one Chadster, or better yet a few links showing how you SUPPORT THE TROOPS.

And the Liberal method of argument comes full circle with a subject change. Our point has been won, so, I’ll settle for the smug answer:

“Underpants.”

You’re welcome.

By Chadster on 07.05.05 06:01

Oh, and Mr. Longwinded Troll? There are only two Fs in “off”. I’m sure that the reasoned, thoughtful progressives like David Scott Whatchamahoozit will ignore your hidden profanity, though.

BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!

By Chadster on 07.05.05 06:05

Bwahahah. The perfect ending to any thread these days: a Texas Hold’em spam message.

By Doug Stewart on 07.06.05 15:36

Chad dear…..

What profanity?

Ummm…gawd…I hate to have to keep making this point, but I thought it was pretty clear is my first paragraph….I don’t have the same equipment as you dear….you do still have yours I suppose…well, I really don’t care to know, but, really……underpants??? Do you wear them? hmmm……..I’m going to have to rethink my entire idea of men wearing “underpants” …. silk???

Well, Longwinded Troll….well, trolls are generally really ugly with big warty-like knobbed noses, or so they have been represented…hmmm… not sure the description fits… but, its an interesting halloween idea… have to get a lot shorter and stouter though… I can deal with longwinded if that’s your biggest complaint… LOL

(Wondering to self why I am bothering… must be late!)

By Sinequanon on 07.07.05 07:17