"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

Yeah, most people kind find ways to justify murder. I had one of THOSE kinda cousins. He used to always talk about killing politicians because ultimately they were responsible for the death of our soldiers. I always wondered if I would some day read about him shooting up some post office.

Let me guess. You never served in the military, right?

Your comment just reeks of someone who has no idea what he is talking about. Your cousin who wants to assassinate someone for political reasons has no connection. But it is fun to read. So thanks for that. What I am talking about is very different where shooting an idiot clueless reporter would be the only way to save a mission and even a war. Once again, I gave a link to a book which details examples where reporters were mindlessly getting in the way and almost comprised a mission and, even worse, broadcast the identity of an undercover operative. I know it is bad to kill innocent people but in the real world people die because of stupidity every second. That is just part of life.
 
Last edited:
That's easy, he is engaging in a fallacy known as a false dichotomy. We know empirically that there are many nations doing at least as well as us (and arguably much better) that are mixed economies. They all have UHC, strong social safety nets and lots of rich people who own Yachts, Jets, Mansions, etc. They don't have many multibillionaires but why is that important.

To be fair, this must have taken place about 30 years ago at least. In that world things were a lot different and he probably had the Soviet Union in mind when he said "Russia" and he probably was talking about a China that had yet to open up to free trade like it has now.
 
Reporters have not historically been on the battle field.
Wikipedia's current article on war correspondents lists nine war correspondents of the 19th century, including Stephen Crane. That article lists 68 war correspondents of the 20th century; some covered the Vietnam war, but most of those listed covered one of the world wars.

Not all of those reporters were present on active battlefields, but the following reporters were present during at least some combat during the world wars:
I'm not sure what this has to do with the Republicans' war on science and reason (unless, of course, Bill Thompson is a Republican).
 
Last edited:
Explain what is wrong with that...Depending on the situation, I would absolutely and intentionally "take out" a reporter.


Bill,

You and I are not very far apart on a lot of issues.

But why do you have to go to indefensible extremes?

If we can't even agree that shooting unarmed reporters is a bad thing, then all the other common ground we may share falls by the wayside and you become a radical ideologue in my book - as repugnant on the right as it is on the left.

And its also been my impression that reporters have been on the battlefield pretty much as long as there have been battlefields, as W.D. outlines.
 
Bill,

You and I are not very far apart on a lot of issues.

But why do you have to go to indefensible extremes?

If we can't even agree that shooting unarmed reporters is a bad thing, then all the other common ground we may share falls by the wayside and you become a radical ideologue in my book - as repugnant on the right as it is on the left.

And its also been my impression that reporters have been on the battlefield pretty much as long as there have been battlefields, as W.D. outlines.

Well, as long as there has been newspapers.
 
Let me guess. You never served in the military, right?

Your comment just reeks of someone who has no idea what he is talking about. Your cousin who wants to assassinate someone for political reasons has no connection. But it is fun to read. So thanks for that. What I am talking about is very different where shooting an idiot clueless reporter would be the only way to save a mission and even a war. Once again, I gave a link to a book which details examples where reporters were mindlessly getting in the way and almost comprised a mission and, even worse, broadcast the identity of an undercover operative. I know it is bad to kill innocent people but in the real world people die because of stupidity every second. That is just part of life.
Murder is murder Bill. I'll bet you are the type of guy who would kill anyone on a plane with a gun, right?

But I'm curious, what is it like to fantasize about killing another human being all the while earning adoration for the heroics? That's some heady stuff.

What if a fellow soldier compromised a mission, kill him too?

What if your commander ordered you into harms way with little hope for success?

What if a civilian stupidly compromised a mission, kill 'em?

Who else do you have a thirst to kill?
 
Murder is murder Bill.

You do not live in the real world.

I think you have not been in the military.

Sorry, man, I did not read your post past this first sentence.

You live in a world that should be, not in the world that really exists. It would be wonderful if it was true that "murder is murder". That is not how things really are in war when the "**** hits the fan".

I would not pretend to know what I am talking about unless I had been in the military, as a minimum requirement.
 
Last edited:
You do not live in the real world.

I think you have not been in the military.

Sorry, man, I did not read your post past this first sentence.

You live in a world that should be, not in the world that really exists. It would be wonderful if it was true that "murder is murder". That is not how things really are in war when the "**** hits the fan".
Well of course Bill. In the real world it's every man for themselves. We don't need no stinking rules. If there is an emergency it's okay to kill anyone who you think might be a threat. Thankfully the Uniform Code of Military Justice recognizes the facts and allows for the killing of civilians and fellow soldiers who are screw-ups. I understand that for some soldiers killing unarmed civilians is sexually arousing or provides a strong sense of power. They just need to find some justification. Like men who kill their wives, the wives always had it coming. And you just know that reporters have a red bulls eye on their back and deserve to die because lack of training alone puts the unit at risk. I'd recommend slitting their throat while they sleep.

Civilized my ass.

fullmetaljacketcopy.jpg
 
Last edited:
Not all of those reporters were present on active battlefields, but the following reporters were present during at least some combat during the world wars:


[list snipped for brevity's sake]


I can add one reporter to that list: Matthew Halton of the CBC, who most definitely did do some reports from active battlefields during WWII.
 
You do not live in the real world.

I think you have not been in the military.

Sorry, man, I did not read your post past this first sentence.

You live in a world that should be, not in the world that really exists. It would be wonderful if it was true that "murder is murder". That is not how things really are in war when the "**** hits the fan".

I would not pretend to know what I am talking about unless I had been in the military, as a minimum requirement.

Wrong. The UCMJ clearly defines what murder is.
 
I can add one reporter to that list: Matthew Halton of the CBC, who most definitely did do some reports from active battlefields during WWII.

Or Winston Churchill, who acted as a correspondent and was captured during the Second Boer War.
 
I can add one reporter to that list: Matthew Halton of the CBC, who most definitely did do some reports from active battlefields during WWII.

Indeed he did! My Master's thesis was partially based on his reporting. He had a great poetic style for a war correspondent. One of a kind. :)
 
I would not pretend to know what I am talking about unless I had been in the military, as a minimum requirement.
Isn't that awfully convenient? You get to say whatever you please and everyone else is wrong because you were in the military. It's impossible for civilians to ascertain facts. Read books written by soldiers, commanders and generals. Or hell, it's impossible to talk to a nephew who served two tours in Iraq and who says that there is no place for that kind of cowboy justice in the modern military. It happens sure, and some soldiers rape civilians and kill and molest children. That's real world also but it doesn't make it moral.

It's easy to justify atrocity.
 
Where do you get your information? I get my information from books written by people I have reason to believe they know what they are talking about. Lots of what you have just said does not fit with what I have read. Here is one book for you:

http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-War-D...4808/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325578065&sr=8-1

Where do I get my information? I lived through it. I'm 68. Perhaps you're younger and don't remember the Vietnam war.

Here's a bit of my biography that might explain something to you. When I was 17, about to turn 18, my parents pushed me into joining the Navy to avoid being drafted into the Army, thus to keep me a step or so back from any war. Since I was still 17 when I joined, I was in for what was called the Minority Enlistment: Join before you're 18, you get out the day before you turn 21. Those of us in for the minority enlistment were called, in the Navy, "kiddie cruisers." I joined in 1961 and was released from active duty in 1964. In addition to getting out before I turned 21, I got an earlier out to start college. I would have gotten out in mid October, but actually got out in early September of 1964.

I was raised in the 'burbs and was rather insulated from the outside world. Thus, my political values were somewhat moderate to conservative. During my last year of enlistment I discovered the works of Ayn Rand and became infatuated with her philosophy of objectivism. It really did appeal to a 20 year-old with limited life experience. In 1964 I registered as a Republican and enthusiastically voted for Barry Goldwater. Thus, when the Vietnam war started, I was an avid supporter of the war.

My support for the Vietnam war steadily eroded when government after government in South Vietnam fell. Each one was touted by the Johnson administration to be the one that would bring political stability to South Vietnam. None of them did. Further, year after year of American involvement in the war failed to make any gains. No territory was taken from the Viet Cong, and there was no conversion of the countryside into supporting our side in the struggle.

I began the war as an Ayn Rand enthusiast and a Goldwater Republican. By the end of the war, I was on the political left. Reality and my initial political ideology clashed. Eventually, reality won.

Let me end with an anecdote that indicates the duplicity of the American government toward its people concerning why and when we were drawn into that conflict. I was a hospital corpsman in the Navy. One of the hazards of being a Navy corpsman is that, upon graduation from Hospital Corps school, you might get sent to the Fleet Marine Force; i.e. you had joined the Navy, only to end up wearing Marine uniform, undergoing infantry training and being in combat with the Marines. Generally, only one or two guys from each company would be taken into the Fleet Marine Force. Suddenly, as our company was about to graduate in 1962, they started taking whole companies for the Fleet Marines (They leap-frogged our company, and I was spared that danger). The rationale given for this was that they were building up WestPac, i.e. the west Pacific Fleet. Since we were all naive 18 year-olds, t didn't occur to us to ask why they were building up WestPac. Of course, they were building it up to get ready for the Vietnam war. Thus, the assertion that we only went into Vietnam reluctantly in 1964 in response to North Vietnamese PT boats attacking our Navy ships is bogus.

Frankly, I think my living through the years of the Vietnam war trumps any book you can throw at me.
 
You do not live in the real world.

I think you have not been in the military.

I have been in ther military and I think you are talking out your ass when it comes to military science.

You live in a world that you think should be, not in the world that really exists.

It would be wonderful if it was true that "murder is murder". That is not how things really are in war when the "**** hits the fan".
Not if the leadership of our forces is functioning at a proper level. This, of course, makes it more likely that some officers did put reporters on a hit list under Bush the Lesser and Rummy.

I would not pretend to know what I am talking about unless I had been in the military, as a minimum requirement.

If that is true, I am surprised that you survived the experience.
 
Well of course Bill. In the real world it's every man for themselves. We don't need no stinking rules. If there is an emergency it's okay to kill anyone who you think might be a threat. Thankfully the Uniform Code of Military Justice recognizes the facts and allows for the killing of civilians and fellow soldiers who are screw-ups. I understand that for some soldiers killing unarmed civilians is sexually arousing or provides a strong sense of power. They just need to find some justification. Like men who kill their wives, the wives always had it coming. And you just know that reporters have a red bulls eye on their back and deserve to die because lack of training alone puts the unit at risk. I'd recommend slitting their throat while they sleep.

Civilized my ass.

[qimg]http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/1912/fullmetaljacketcopy.jpg[/qimg]
Left arm tattoo "Our Business is Killing !".
Right arm tattoo "Business is Good !".
 
Science is for people who expect the world to be rational.
That is almost right.
If you are almost right, you are still wrong.

The world is not rational. Liberalism is for people who want the world to be rational. Progressives want change. They want progress. The problem is that the old adage, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" has some truth in it. Change often means things to from bad to worse. Marx was a progressive in a sense. In his mind he saw how the world should be -- a world that was more rational. Just get rid of private property and have everyone share resources. It did not work.
 

Back
Top Bottom