Dangerous People

[BeerMoney]

Here is a list of people that I consider dangerous to the American way of life. What is your list? (Order your list too.)

1.Osama Bin Laden
2.George Bush
3.Donald Rumsfeld
4.Dick Cheney
5.Karl Rove
6.Jerry Falwell
7.John Ashcroft
8.Ariel Sharon
9.Rush Limbaugh

I'm not really sure about the order. But, I don't care for anyone on this list.

[GWB]

1.Osama Bin Laden
2.John Kerry
3.Hillary Clinton
4.Bill Clinton
5.Terry McAuliffe
6.Tom Daschle
7.Ted Kennedy
8.Yasser Arafat
9.Nancy Pelosi
10.George Soros

[smudgex68]

You missed off Ronald McDonald and Colonel "Kentucky Fried chicken" Sanders, as well as Mr Krispy Kreme etc etc. They're killing more Americans than Osama could ever hope to do.

[Chris Alger]

Good list, but you left off John Kerry. This year's liberal hero shows little inclination to reverse course.

[Gamblor]

Wow there's a shock.

Ariel Sharon.

Sure, blame the man on the real front lines of the War on Terror.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow there's a shock.

Ariel Sharon.

Sure, blame the man on the real front lines of the War on Terror.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's a thug.

[jokerswild]

You give Osama Bin Laden too much credit. Bush should head the list. Osama hasn't busted the US budget. Osama Bin Laden hasn't destroyed the IV amendment to the Constitution. Osama Bin Laden hasn't given Iraq to Halliburton. Arab terrorists, or any terrorists for that matter, will never have the power to destroy the American way of life.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
10.George Soros

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I guess the GOP doesn't like capitalists or free markets after all.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
10.George Soros

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I guess the GOP doesn't like capitalists or free markets after all.

[/ QUOTE ]
He is not working for the betterment of our free market economy, is he?

I don't like Benedict Arnold, even though I generally like American Generals who are victorious in a major US battle.

[nicky g]

"He is not working for the betterment of our free market economy, is he?"

Of course is. He's trying to get rid of you.

Actually, I read today that Soros was a key investor in the Carlyle Group, along with Bush Snr (actually can't remember if he was/is an investor or board member or both), which I thought was interesting given his campaign against junior and the Carlyle Group's general reputation for being an evil right wing player in all manner of conspiracy theories.

Does anywhere else suffer from people impersonating the President, or is it just us and the White House?

[superleeds]

In no particular order

Kim Chong-Il
George Bush
Vladimir Putin
Jintao Hu
Ariel Sharon
Tony Blair
Jacques Chirac
Mohamed Hosni Mubarak
Abdul Kalam
Gen. Prevez Musharraf

[nicky g]

I don't really see why any of the non-Americans mentioned are threats to the American way of life (whatever that is). Threats to American security, perhaps. But none of these people are going to be able to force America to change any of its domestic policies. They could provoke a reaction perhaps, but ultimately that's still in the hand of domestic politicians (and, one would hope, the electorate). I can see why various people will argue that Bush or Kerry and associated figures are threats, but not the others.

[Gamblor]

The singular lack of Saddam Hussein, Yasir Arafat, and the Assad Family, while including names like Ariel Sharon, who has yet to inflict any damage on American life or ideology, is incredibly disconcerting.

You still haven't figured out that the Arab attempt to demonize a single man as the source of all Israeli evil is based in Islamofascism, not fact. Arabs still teach their children that Jews drink Arab blood for dinner and are trying to take over the world. Why do you suddenly believe them now that they're talking about Sharon?

Perhaps a better title for this post is:

"People I hate because left-wing writers told me to"

Being unable to find a better candidate for your list than the democratically-elected Prime Minister of a Jewish nation a great threat to the American way of life is nothing short of anti-semitic. And to blame him for Arab murderous terrorism against Americans is nothing short of insane.

[nicky g]

"People I hate because left-wing writers told me to, because I'm unable to think for myself" "

Why do you assume this? Do you know how obnoxioulsy arrogant you sound? People here are perfectly capable of reading a range of books, following the news, talking to people etc and making up their own minds. Not everyone you disagree with is necessarily stupid or a dupe; if you think they are you have a lot of growing up to do.

"The singular lack of Saddam Hussein, Yasir Arafat, and the Assad Family, while including names like Ariel Sharon, who wouldn't harm an American if they were stealing his last penny, is incredibly disconcerting."

Saddam Hussein in in jail. Assad and Arafat by themselves pose zero threat to the US; they are far too weak and would derive no benefit from taking it on. Presumably Sharon is on the list as someone with a habit of outraging enormous sections of the world population and in charge of a large nuclear arsenal. Like I said in my other post, I don;t see that many non_Americans are directly capacble of changing the US way of life so I wouldn't myself include him.

"
Why is the entire Arab world up in arms against the West and anyone they deem to be an enemy of Islam? Are we really that evil to deserve death as revenge?"

No, we're not, and the entire Arab world doesn't think anything like that. Most Arabs and most Muslims (I see as usual you move from one to the other, as if four fifths of the Muslim world simply didn't exist), like most people, would be quite happy to leave alone and be left alone. For the umpteenth time the Arab world and the Muslim world don't act as a block any more than anyuone else does; they are comprised of a broad range of individuals with their own opinions.

[nicky g]

"Being unable to find a better candidate for your list than the democratically-elected Prime Minister of a Jewish nation a great threat to the American way of life is nothing short of anti-semitic. "

It is not in itself remotely antisemitic. Ariel Sharon is a prominent politician and people are allowed to have whatever opinions they want about him. Furthermore he is a notorious thug, someone whom even the gloopiest of Israeli whitewashes found unfit for office, with a record of invasion and brutal repression, and he is sitting on 300 nuclear weapons in the powder keg of the world. I don't think he should be on the list, for different reasons, but you are really scraping the barrel bringing back this old chestnut.

[Gamblor]

I see as usual you move from one to the other, as if four fifths of the Muslim world simply didn't exist

I deleted this from my edited post, but nonetheless, the Arabs don't call Sharon and Bush "The enemies of Arabs", they call him "the enemies of Muslims".

I'm just using their words. The Arab powers position themselves as the caretakers of the Muslim faith, which is hardly a stretch, considering they've slaughtered billions from Morrocco to Malaysia in the name of said faith.

[jdl22]

Last I checked Saddam Hussein is in US custody. How is he a threat to the American way of life?

The others you mentioned are not a threat to the US either. They are threats to Israel but we're talking about the US here. Ariel Sharon on the other hand does more to help Al Qaeda recruiting than practically anyone else on Earth. Hence he is a threat to the US way of life.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really see why any of the non-Americans mentioned are threats to the American way of life (whatever that is). Threats to American security, perhaps. But none of these people are going to be able to force America to change any of its domestic policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take your point but in my opinion the only threat to the American way of life would be a serious global conflict. Those listed either have Nuclear Capability or are likely to start something which may escalate.

Naming names is probably unnecessary. Whoever holds these positions are the most likely candidates. Of course in twenty years the countries may have changed a bit (and there will be more no doubt). Also singling out countries is a bit of a nonsense, only the US, Russia or China could concievably go it alone at least in the initial stages before all-out war exists.

[jdl22]

BeerMoney I basically agree with everyone you mention. I would like to add all the executives and people in the administration connected with Enron Tyco and Haliburton, especially Haliburton.

[Gamblor]

Furthermore he is a notorious thug, someone whom even the gloopiest of Israeli whitewashes found unfit for office

That's funny, he's the leader of the party that won the most seats in the democratic elections, in which all Israelis, from Muhammed in Haifa, to Fahad in the Negev, to Eran in Jerusalem, to Oded in Tel Aviv, were entitled to vote.

, with a record of invasion and brutal repression, and he is sitting on 300 nuclear weapons in the powder keg of the world.

How is this a threat to the "American way of life" on the same level as Osama bin Laden? Sharon is an ally of the United States!

What other reason could he be up there other than the fact that he's the leader of the Jewish State, if the poster left names like Bashar Assad and Ayatollah Khomeini, whose nuclear programs and regular anti-American propaganda to people that obviously take that propaganda quite seriously - through terrorism - off the list?

[Gamblor]

Sharon on the other hand does more to help Al Qaeda recruiting than practically anyone else on Earth. Hence he is a threat to the US way of life.

And the girl who dresses provocatively is a threat to American society because she encourages people to rape her?

Either way, everyone on these forums has been shouting that the Israeli War on Terror and the American War on Terror are not the same (you'll recall my Israel=America post), and that the Israeli army is oppressing Palestinians, while the American army must exercise its right to fight terrorism!

If that's the case, then what does Sharon have to do with Al-Qaeda, if it's not the Arab governments inflaming their masses to fight anyone who ain't Arab?

[jdl22]

Explain how these people are a threat to the American way of life:

2.John Kerry
I don't remember him saying he was running as a communist

4.Bill Clinton
Seems he has less power now than before even if you think he was a threat

3.Hillary Clinton
While she has more power than her husband what is she doing that is a threat to the US way of life?

6.Tom Daschle
7.Ted Kennedy

Same as Hillary basically - what are they doing that is a threat?

8.Yasser Arafat
Arafat is a threat to our ally but is he really a threat to the US?

Seems your list simply consists of people that are on the opposite side of the political aisle from your boy in the whitehouse. What troubles me more is that these names and others seem to be of people that have been outspoken against the administration. It would seem these acts which define our way of life are destructive to it according to you. Interesting.

Also erections lasting four hours while rare immediate medical attention. You and the other right wing conservatives have had an erection for the Clintons since 1992 which makes it a dozen years. Perhaps you should see a doctor.

[Gamblor]

Here is a list of people that I consider dangerous to the American way of life. What is your list? (Order your list too.)

1.Osama Bin Laden
2.George Bush
3.Donald Rumsfeld
4.Dick Cheney
5.Karl Rove
6.Jerry Falwell
7.John Ashcroft
8.Ariel Sharon
9.Rush Limbaugh

I'm not really sure about the order. But, I don't care for anyone on this list.

[elwoodblues]

1.Osama Bin Laden
2.John Kerry
3.Hillary Clinton
4.Bill Clinton
5.Terry McAuliffe
6.Tom Daschle
7.Ted Kennedy
8.Yasser Arafat
9.Nancy Pelosi
10.George Soros

[CORed]

I don't like Sharon. He is a thug. OTOH, I think the Palestinians have the prime minister of Israel they deserve. In the last round of peace negotiations, I thought the sticking point would be Jerusalem. Yet the Israelis, much to my surprise, seemed to be willing to compromise even on their capital and most sacred city. (And yes, I know it is sacred to Islam, too.) The sticking point ended up being the "right of return", The Palestinians were not content with establishing a Palestinian state to which Palestinian refugees could return. They wanted the right to return to Israel, too, and potentially overwhelm Israel by sheer numbers.

I don't believe tha Arafat was ever negotiating in good faith. He insisted on a provision that he knew Israel would never accept. I think his intent from the beginning was to manipulate the peace process to give himself a base of operations for his real goal, the destruction of Israel. By double-crossing the reasonable people in Israel, he left Israel little choice but to elect Sharon, or someone like him. Until the Palestinians can find a way to accept the reality that Israel isn't going away, I see little hope for improvement in the Israeli-Palestinian situation. And though I think Sharon's tactics are often excessively heavy-handed, I can't say I wouldn't do the same in his shoes.

[Gamblor]

Bill Clinton is the MAN.

Hillary Clinton is a ball-busting bitch.

Yasir Arafat is John Gotti incarnate.

[Gamblor]

Thank you for restoring my faith in this country.

Every word you said is true.

And yes, Sharon is a badass, but I like him cause he isn't a patsy like Rabin.

To each his own, but Sharon is still no Netanyahu

[CORed]

You're right. I'm overweight and my cholesterol is high. I could die of a heart attack any day. It's all the fault of those evil fast food people for selling me the food I wanted to eat instead of going broke trying to sell tofu and salads.

[andyfox]

"Being unable to find a better candidate for your list than the democratically-elected Prime Minister of a Jewish nation a great threat to the American way of life is nothing short of anti-semitic."

I don't think he's dangerous because he's the head of the Jewish state. I think he's dangerous because of who he is. While I might not put him on the top (bottom?) ten list, he certainly ranks higher (lower?) than would, say Shimon Peres (disregarding his advanced years for the sake of the argument), were he the current democratically elected head of the Jewish state.

A question: Since Israel defines itself as the Jewish state, does criticism of that state, in Israel's mind, equal anti-semitism?

[adios]

Sounds like this may be at least a tad bit subjective.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to add all the executives and people in the administration connected with Enron Tyco and Haliburton

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know of a single one do you? Cheney divested his financial interests in Halliburton before the 2000 election (turned out that it saved him a bundle). On the other hand the Enron and Tyco malfeasance occurred during the Clinton administration. Corporate governance has been significantly improved during the Bush administration and the SEC has been much more aggressive as well. Also Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin is a top level exec at Citigroup who along with JP Morgan have paid large fines for their participation in the Enron and Worldcomm misdeeds. Rubin was at Citigroup when Enron utilized Citigroups offshore business entities to hide debt on the Enron balance sheet and facilitate round trip trading of energy contracts which made Enron's revenues appear much larger than they were. Tyco was an issue of top level management more or less looting the company. Two top level managers (Schwartz ? and Kozlowski) were recently tried for their alleged misdeeds but the jury could not reach a unanimous decision so it was a mistrial. Tyco is well off it's highs in the late 90's but that could be said about a lot of stocks. Tyco has never been in Chapter 11 (at least not recently) to my knowledge. Hanging this kind of thing on the Bush administration is an indicator that you're highly misinformed on the Enron, Tyco and Halliburton situations.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Arab terrorists, or any terrorists for that matter, will never have the power to destroy the American way of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only as long as they don't acquire deliverable weapons of mass destruction. If they could take out, say, a dozen of our largest cities we would be largely f^ck#d.

[adios]

How about the ambulance chasers?

[adios]

N/M

[elwoodblues]

Both lists seem silly to me. The only justification for Limbaugh (in my mind) is that his program leads to an uninformed/misinformed electorate --- seems weak (the electorate is uninformed without him). I think Limbaugh changes the tone in civil discourse to such an extent that, for example, it is hard to have a discussion about Women's right without someone lowering the discussion to "feminazi." I certainly don't think that warrants inclusion on the list.

[sfer]

He used to run and still is the principal investor of one of the biggest hedge funds on the Street. And he's at least partially responsible for forcing the Bank of England to float the Pound Ssterling. I can't imagine a job that can be more the poster-child of capitalism.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like Benedict Arnold, even though I generally like American Generals who are victorious in a major US battle.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has zero relevance.

[Gamblor]

Since Israel defines itself as the Jewish state, does criticism of that state, in Israel's mind, equal anti-semitism?

Of course not.

Disproportionate criticism, for example greater criticism than directed at nations committing far worse atrocities, certainly is.

Likewise blaming Israel for unrelated problems (such as the Arab predisposition towards blaming Israel for America's "Zionist" government and imperialist foreign policy), as well as claiming Israel is a greater threat to peace than the Arab dicatatorial regimes who continuously blame Western democracy for all evil and enrage their populations through the kind of posturing and 1984-style propaganda that would make Goebbels himself blush.

Just the same, the libelous/slanderous demonization of Israel and Israeli leadership as less than human or evil, as well as the comparison between Zionism (a repatriation movement that turned, by necessity, into a political-security-for-refugees movement) and Nazism (an ethnic cleansing through genocide movement).

This thread makes 1984 seem like an inevitability, as it's plainly obvious that all that propaganda is working, at least on the American public.

Jews don't issue fatwas, so it's a lot easier for journalists to make Arabs look good, and it's a lot easier to believe journalists who tell you the (relatively) rich guys are evil.

Very few Americans identify with the rich guy.

With all that money Israel gets, the security imperatives make Israel's 12% unemployment rate and similar poverty rate not-so-shocking. But Israelis don't care. From Ariel to Tel Aviv to Gush Katif, we can be poor, but we're not going anywhere. Any Arabs who want to hang out with us, they're welcome to stay here and help us build a country. But Israel's mandate is to accept persecuted Jews, and we don't have to worry when the world shouts "Stop the Jews, they are a spreading cancer!".

No government in history has ever been able to protect its Jewish population from the anti-semitic elements of its electorate. The United States of the last decade was the first, but even still, elements exist that are barely marginal that would have the Jews deported. Anti-semitic doesn't necessarily mean "Kill the Jews" - it means "the Jews cause problems". Any Arabs that wished peace with Israel have made peace with Israel, cold as it may be.

Whether I wear a black hat and a beard or a tank top and sandals, I know I'm a Jew, and I know Israel is where I don't have to worry about pogroms and ovens, dhimmis and riots, cause Jews can protect themselves. Criticize all you like, but don't turn Israel into a pariah. That would anti-semitic.

[Utah]

Hi Gamblor,

I definitely dont think Sharon belongs on the list - its idiotic. But, dont the Palestinians have reason to hate him? Did he not slaughter all those people in the camp or is that an Arab lie?

[BeerMoney]

DoucheBag,

Saddam Hussein is in jail. I don't fear him.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]

Being unable to find a better candidate for your list than the democratically-elected Prime Minister of a Jewish nation a great threat to the American way of life is nothing short of anti-semitic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dingleberry, Shut up. Now! I think that having the balls to label someone as Anti-Semitic without justification is more offensive than being Anti-Semitic. You shouldn't just throw those kind of accusations and labels around like they mean nothing. If I said I didn't like Jesse Jackson, would I therefore be a racist? You suck. Seriously.

[B-Man]

This is pathetic.

[smudgex68]

[ QUOTE ]
patsy like Rabin

[/ QUOTE ]

Roflmao

I assume you're being ironic. Chances of a lasting peace ended when Amir assassinated Yitzhak Rabin. Amir was an Israeli right-wing activist opposed to the Oslo Peace Process - scum of the earth like all ignorant fundamentalists

[Gamblor]

Did he not slaughter all those people in the camp or is that an Arab lie?

Of course it is (assuming you're referring to Sabra and Shatila.

We've rehashed this at length in the past.

The Christian Lebanese Army were enlisted by the IDF because it was known that the Christians were far more progressive (liberally/democratically) than the Muslim side of the Lebanese civil War. The Muslim side was a mere extension of the Arab Islamofascist imperialists, hoping that Arab victory in Lebanon would eventually lead to Arab victory in Israel.

It is the same as those who fail to understand the Arab terrorist message: It is not, "Get out of Gaza, or else." It is, "Regardless of what you desire, we will push you out of Gaza as we pushed you out of Lebanon and as we will push you out of the rest of Palestine that you refer to as Israel."

So, we have the South (Christian) Lebanese Army, supported by the IDF, in civil War with the Muslim Arabs, who were led by the PLO at this point. On September 14, 1982, the President of the Christian Lebanese, Bashir Gemayal, was assassinated by Muslims initially thought to be members of the PLO (The assassination was later revealed to have been committed by Syrian nationals).

The SLA (or Phalangists, as they are also called), entered the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps with blood on their minds, and massacred, raped and pillaged their way through the camps. The IDF, remained outside the camps (Then Minister of Defence Ariel Sharon was in Tel Aviv).

When Israeli soldiers were alerted to the massacre and ordered the Phalangists out, they found hundreds dead, including as many as 35 women and children.

The hundreds were nothing compared to the tens of thousands who had died in the Lebanese civil war with the PLO, but the massacre was met with pure fury in the Israeli public.

Weird though, there was almost no protest at the time in the Arab world, although "Sabra Shatila" has now become the code word of Palestinian Arabs for allegations of Israeli atrocities. Most protests were (and are) directed at the Israelis, not the the Phalangists, who commited the crime.

On February 8, 1983, the Kahan Commission released its report on the culpability of Israeli officers relating to the incident. The specific part, related to Sharon, said:

In our view, the minister of defense made a grave mistake when he ignored the danger of acts of revenge and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population in the refugee camps... It is our view that responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps, and having failed to take this danger into account when he decided to move the Phalangists into the camps.

In addition, responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps. These blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the defense minister was charged

Although Sharon insists that he had received no intelligence and could not have known that the Phalangists were about to commit a massacre in the camps, he was forced to resign his post as Defense Minister and faced widespread public hatred that nearly ended his career. He is still asking for release of all classified documents from the Kahan Commission, saying he would be vindicated if they were released. Elie Hobeika, the Phalangist leader directly responsible for carrying out the massacres, became allied himself with the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, and had a long career until he was assassinated in a bombing at his house in January 2002.

In May, 1985, Muslim militiamen attacked the Shatila and Burj-el Barajneh Palestinian refugee camps. According to UN officials, 635 were killed and 2,500 wounded. There is no record of any protests or public investigation.

[Gamblor]

Amir is scum, but Rabin was still a patsy.

He let Arafat play him like a fiddle.

Amir, despite his insanity, supported the peace process, but opposed the Oslo peace process. There's a difference.

Nonetheless, how do you explain to Amir that his nation will sell him out, when all he wanted was to build a livelihood in a town in the Shomron, a region that Rabin was about to tell him he was no longer allowed to live in?

All of this doesn't mean that Amir was not a lunatic, nor does it mean Rabin deserved to die.

[Gamblor]

If you thought that Jesse Jackson were a greater threat to the American way of life than Jerry Falwell, than yes, you would be racist.

It's not your inclusion of Sharon as dangerous (as insane as it may be), its your inclusion of Sharon at the exclusion of names like Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, who not only implicitly supports terrorism against American targets, but also could shut off the oil pipeline if he felt he wasn't making enough money off the sucker Americans.

That could really change your way of life.

But ignoring that, and bringing Sharon into the mix, well, if it's not anti-Jewish, it's at least anti-Jewish State.

I don't claim YOU as a person are anti-semitic. But that list is anti-Jewish in effect, if not intent.

What is one to think, seeing US-ally Sharon on the list, but not a name like Ayatollah Khomeini, who would love to shut down the Budweiser plant and throw a burka on new-American-citizen Pamela Anderson?

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
its your inclusion of Sharon at the exclusion of names like Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, who not only implicitly supports terrorism against American targets, but also could shut off the oil pipeline if he felt he wasn't making enough money off the sucker Americans.



[/ QUOTE ]

Put him on the list.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Here is a list of people that I consider dangerous to the American way of life.

What indeed *is* "The American Way of Life?" I venture to say that you could walk around this country and get several different answers on what people believe that "Way of Life" actually is.

You list is extremely political. Anyone in opposition to the liberal party line is an enemy to you. Fine. You're welcome to your opinion. While I might agree that Bin Laden, Falwell and Ashcroft belong on that list, I don't see how Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld belong there to the exclusion of Clinton, Kennedy, Reno and Rangel. To my mind, all big government politicians are a threat to liberty.

Sharon is not a threat to us regardless of what you think of Israel. And Rush Limbaugh (and Al Franken) are the epitome of what should be the American way: Opinionated people who speak their respective minds freely and openly on the airwaves.

But I digress. Here's my list. It's either very short or very long depending on how you look at it. In fact, I'm going to eschew the words "American Way of Life."

The biggest threat to Liberty in the US is an American electorate that believes that it is the purpose of government to proactively mold and create "a better society."

Oh, yeah, and not far behind that in 2nd place is organized religion. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]

What indeed *is* "The American Way of Life?"
...
..
Oh, yeah, and not far behind that in 2nd place is organized religion. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

To me.. Freedom and the fact that a lot of people have the opportunity to improve their economic and educational standing. More than anything freedom. We also live in a very safe country. I just don't think any of those people give a f*** about improving middle class or lowering the middle class lifestyle.

I don't go to church or anything, so i say this without a bias in favor of religion, but I think organized religion gets something of a bad rap.

[smudgex68]

[ QUOTE ]
supported the peace process, but opposed the Oslo peace process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he did, but peace on his terms, which were obviously unattainable - a similar argument used today by religious fundamentalists of all persuasions. These nutcases, and those that agree with them, are complete scum.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
He used to run and still is the principal investor of one of the biggest hedge funds on the Street. And he's at least partially responsible for forcing the Bank of England to float the Pound Ssterling. I can't imagine a job that can be more the poster-child of capitalism.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like Benedict Arnold, even though I generally like American Generals who are victorious in a major US battle.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has zero relevance.

[/ QUOTE ]
The relevance is paralleled in your post. Both men did a valuable service to the country, and then turned to activities to deliberately hurt the country.

A traitor, who once was a positive influence, is worse than someone who never did anything.

W

[Utah]

Hi Gamblor,

Thank you the clarification.

Well, it does sound like he bears a lot of responsiblity from what you said, even if he didnt lead the charge. Certainly, the Palestinians are incredibly hypocritical but that is nothing new.

[nicky g]

"Idon't like Sharon. He is a thug. OTOH, I think the Palestinians have the prime minister of Israel they deserve. In the last round of peace negotiations, I thought the sticking point would be Jerusalem. Yet the Israelis, much to my surprise, seemed to be willing to compromise even on their capital and most sacred city. (And yes, I know it is sacred to Islam, too.) The sticking point ended up being the "right of return", "

Jerusalem was one of the main sticking points (along with the refugees). The Israeli "willingness to compromise" was a provisonal offer for the Palestinians to take an obscure East Jerusalem suburb called Abu Dis, rename it al-Quds (Arabic for Jerusalem) and use it has their capital. All of Jerusalem proper including Arabic East Jerusalem would have been retained by Israel.

[nicky g]

He bears a lot more responsibilty than Gamblor's post suggested. For a start, he broke a promise made to Reagan's envoy in return for the PLO leadership's withdrawal from Lebanon not to allow Israeli or Phalangist troops into West Beirut, which was seen as essential given the Phalange's reputation and the fact that the camps were left more or less undefended. In spite of this promise the IDF borke the ceasefire line and escorted the Phalange, which was ultimately under IDF and hence Sharon's orders, to the gates of the camps. There was simply no way the Phalange could have done this by itself.

When the Phalange were sent in there was an internatinal outcry; based on past Phalange actions and statements it was blindlingly obvious what would happen. Nevertheless, despite these fears and reports of massacres, Israeli soldiers guarding the exits of the camps refused to allow a single woman or child to leave the camps for three whole days, somehow with no knowledge of what happened. There is a great deal of testimony and radio recordings proving conclusively that, even if they were somehow too stupid to ahve foreseen what everybody else did, the IDF knew what was happening in the camps.
Some other points: the Phalange was not remotely more "progressive" than various Muslim factions - it was named after a fascist organisation for starters. The PLO did not lead the Muslims in the civil war by any stretch of the imagination; indeed at various points the Lebanese Musklim factions were effectively at war with the PLO. Aside from what happened in the camps themselves, dozens of people went into the adjacent sports stadium which was under direct IDF control - not Phalange - and were never seen again. Although only a couple of dozen of bodies of women and children were actually found in the camps, the Phalange had been using (IDF) diggers throughout the operation, and mounds of freshly dug earth could be seen from outside the camp. Phalange soldiers boasted that the scale of the carnage would only be known if anyone ever built a subway system in Beirut. Thomas Friedman, hardly a Palestinian sympathiser, reported that while most of the victims he saw were men, they had clearly been the victims of mass executions; they were unarmed, lined up against walls, and had their hands tied behind their backs = and that there were mounds of freshly dug graves throughout the camp.

[John Cole]

#1. The ne plus ultra: Ayn Rand /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Gamblor]

Oh, yeah, and not far behind that in 2nd place is organized religion.

Even organized religion that

a) doesn't proselytize,
and
b) doesn't give a rat's ass what non-members of the religion say or do, as long as it isn't discriminatory against the members of said religion?

Seems to me a good description of rabbis, who are both forbidden to proselytize and forbidden to break the local laws of the land - a Talmudic ruling designed to raise the ire of local antiJewish authorities.

[Gamblor]

The ne plus ultra: Ayn Rand

I happened to like Atlas Shrugged.

Care to explain?

[jdl22]

You are perhaps correct that I should not have added Tyco to the list. However Enron and Halliburton are both well connected to the administration. The people running these countries appear to have a fair influence on our policies both foreign and domestic. Since they don't have to answer to the public they are a threat to our democracy.

Again, I apologize for adding Tyco to the list. I think people like the Tyco executives should be added to the list but for different reasons. I'm aware of no connection between them and the Bush administration.

[andyfox]

All this from saying that Sharon is a dangerous man for the United States?

[John Cole]

Rand's "philosophy"--too use the term loosely--amounts too nothing more than an excuse for racism in the ignorant and the callow.

In addition, any novel over five hundred pages not written by Dickens or George Eliot should be suspect. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jokerswild]

.

[MMMMMM]

I've never read the book, only tidbits and remarks about it.

Could Rand's philosophy be summarized in one paragraph? Now I'm more curious than ever.

[ericd]

Bill O'Reilly. He takes a narrow, simplistic and dangerous slant on many sensitive issues. Sadly, a large part of his large following takes everything he says as fact without any room for debate.

[Gamblor]

Rand's "philosophy"--too use the term loosely--amounts too nothing more than an excuse for racism in the ignorant and the callow.

I read the book (a couple times) and I really didn't see anything close to racism in there...

I always took Rand's philosophy as:

Since we're all, ultimately, concerned with ourselves, one must ensure that each individual is entitled to the freedom to do whatever they find most beneficial to themselves. That freedom ends where others' begins. Any government/organization that ensures individual freedom is good, any that restricts freedom is bad.

Am I wrong?

[Gamblor]

He takes a narrow, simplistic and dangerous slant on many sensitive issues. Sadly, a large part of his large following takes everything he says as fact without any room for debate.

The same can be said for Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky.

[ericd]

No argument on how they deliver their messages. I just assumed that O'Reilly has a much larger audience and on a much more regular basis.

[Gamblor]

People who think the news on TV accurately reflects reality are more screwed up than Bill O'Reilly could ever make them.

[ericd]

I don't know what % of people use TV news to form their opinions on current events but I guess it would be pretty large. If I'm right then O'Reilly has a large influence. If I'm wrong then disregard everything I've said on the issue.

[Gamblor]

If you're right, then I'm sure we'll see more ridiculousness like Ariel Sharon among the Most Dangerous People to the American Way of life.

For sane people everywhere, I hope you're dead wrong.

Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if you were right.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I've always respected the Jewish position to not proselytize. Sadly, Judaism is but an exception. As they say in English Grammar - the exception proves the rule.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Rand's "philosophy"--too use the term loosely--amounts too nothing more than an excuse for racism

"Racism is the vilest form of collectivism." - Ayn Rand

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Basically, the core of Objectivism is based on the idea that there are only 2 "rights" in the world: The right to your life and the right to support your life by productive labor. The concept is that nobody has the right that no individual has the right to demand from others value that has not been earned.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Rand's "philosophy"

You're not the 1st person to put quotes around the word "philosophy" when referring to Objectivism. Why do Rand's theories deserve any less respect than, say, Kierkegaard's (sp?) or Nietzsche's?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Noam Chomsky has a great deal of impact on people who attend Universities and don't listen to talk radio. Rush Limbaugh has a great deal of impact on people who don't attend universities and do listen to talk radio.

That fact does not make one of them right and the other wrong. All it says is there is balance.