There will be a march to promote peace, and protest Colin Powell's appearence at the Show Me Center on Oct 2 starting at 6:30. We will be meeting in front of Academic Hall and will proceed to Sprigg St, finishing at the event. All are invited.
Powell would have been tried as a war criminal in another age. He is not my hero, nor will he or his ilk ever receive any gratitude from me for goading us into invading a nation that never attacked my country, much less threatened my freedom.
Me'Lange, Did Lumpy turn down your offer to be his campaign manager or something? :)
Does Godwin's law apply to name dropping the KKK?
Me'Lange, I don't always agree with you but on this poarticular issue I do. Ditto!
As to Lumpy, I'm sure he is a nice guy and means well, but I find myself disagreeing with him more often laately.
Warmongers like Powell know what they are. But if they aren't reminded from time to time; eventually they start believing their own jingoism.
The way I see it, If you protest the actions of the little green men on the planet x580.69, nobody is going to know or understand what the protest is about.
I have always figured Powell was played by the republicans like the democrats played McCain. They both were so impressed they began to believe it themselves.
Lumpy's message would be more effective via the pen than the march. The keyboard is mightier than the shoe leather in this case.
So Powell either deliberately lied, or he was incompetent. Sounds like a hero to me.
It is easy to sit around and gripe all day. Forums like this are wonderful for finding like minded people, I met my good friend BC through the Speakout Forum.
Keyboard activism is no comparision to standing up, and putting political ideas into action. I have marched for and against a variety of causes over the years. Mostly by myself. But it's all about getting the idea out there in front of people as opposed to preaching to the choir.
Ironically the only times I have been threatened have been by the police, and veterans on a couple of occasions. You know, the guys sacrificing to protect our freedom.
Protests are common just about every time someone political speaks on Campus, or in the area. Free speech dictates that they have that freedom. There were protestors when Hillary Clinton was here, there were protestors when Ronaldus Maximus was here, there were protestors when Sarah Palin was here, and so on. It's one of the things that makes America great.
Mr. Powell, likewise, has the freedom to speak, although I'm sure he's not speaking for free. I don't agree with Mr. Powell on a number of issues, I do agree with him on others, but I respect him as a man of experience, intellect, and ability. If he was wrong about the war, either through faulty intelligence or 'skewed' data, such is the nature of things. We made many mistakes in the Civil War, the Great War, World War II, Korea, French IndoChina, Iraq, and Afghanistan. War is like that. It has never been all glory, it has always been all Hell, as were advised famously long ago by one who lived it and conducted it.
Many lives have been lost, needlessly or needfully, in the conduct of war based on faulty intelligence or lack of intelligence or wilful misuse of intelligence. It will ever by thus. I do not fault those who take a stand against war, but I think they are misguided. The History of Man is a history of war, and vice-versa. History has shown that, over time, war generally comes to those who do not go to war.
"The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but an immense altar on which every living thing must be sacrificed without end, without restraint, without respite until the consummation of the world, the extinction of evil, the death of death." - Joseph DeMaistre -
You make a compelling case. One, two, maybe three people voicing their desire for peace before an event which features the poor, old man who help convince the world community that using the largest military force in history against a backwater nation that never attacked us , is indeed the definition of cowardliness.
Never waste a single rock - Abbie Hoffman
There is no question that the founding fathers were opposed to a 'standing army', and that our post-world-war-II arrangement has long violated the prohibition on one. The pretense of a 'Cold War' was used to justify the existence of a standing army even in 'peacetime'. President Bush I and President Clinton began reverting our troops to National Guard (i.e., militia) status but, as I note, war came to us when we would not go to it.
There were terrorist strikes against us prior to 9/11, but we did not respond sufficiently to convince those who would be our enemies that we had the resolve to stand against them. We can only wonder what would have been the response to 9/11 if we had an Al Gore presidency. My thoughts are that it would have been little different.
The founding fathers realized that, if you maintain a standing army, you have to justify their existence from time to time. As Madeline Albright famously remarked: "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" So it is that the ability to wage war often leads to its own justification to do so.
But we cannot simply pare back on that ability, and expect peace. Successful deterence frequently leads to calls to cut back on the very thing that makes peace possible: the threat of retaliation to those who would disturb that peace. As we weaken our defenses, those who see opportunity in weakness take advantage of that weakness and exploit it. Hence we had 9/11.
So, how do we balance the need for deterence with the need to be fully prepared to retaliate against those who perceive passivism to be weakness? The founding fathers thought that should rest with a strong militia. If every able-bodied man were prepared always for possiblility of war, while at the same time engaged in peacetime pursuits, we could establish an effective deterence without the existence of restless warriors in our midst. There would be no Madeline Albrights anxious to flex the strength of our military because there would be no military strength to flex, only armed citizens ready to quell any attack upon our interests.
The results of that thinking have been mixed, I think. Certainly our militia did not keep us out of war, as we've had many throughout our relatively short history. But, we've engaged ourselves more eavily in foreign entanglements in the post-World-War-II era than before it, possibly because we felt the need to use
Myself, I think Presidents Bush I and Clinton had the right idea of moving our military to National Guard Status, but I think it has to be done in a manner that projects an image of strength and readiness, which means a willingness to respond quickly and decively to actions committed against us. That, I think, was our failure during the 1990s.
As you may have guessed. MeLange does not mind getting personal with you or me or anyone else she does not like. But try getting personal with her and see what happens. She gets excited and tells you she is a private person and does not give out personal information.
One day when she got all excited and thought I was going to give out some information on her, information by the way that I did not have, she was beside herself even threatening to sue me. Wonder what it is she is hiding and she does not want people to know?
"US military presents was needed and made a difference in the every day lives of the Iraqi peoples,"
-- Posted by Me'Lange on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 4:25 AM
-What "presents" WERE those?
"I must have missed this newsflash, 'how many years did you serve your country Rick?"
-- Posted by Me'Lange on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 8:14 AM
I have never understood this blind hatred and disregard for people who never went to work for the Corporate Federal Government to go kill other people who never attacked America.
Let me see if I've got this right...if you never were in the military you don't have the right to question, speak out or protest against military actions?
Not only is this wrong, it's just a stupid thing to bring up. That mantra is getting as old and worn out as the words from this Toby Keith song:
"We'll put a boot in your a** it's the American way."
It is false patriotism. Most of you false patriots would support anything the US military did.
I find it increasingly common that some people think that if one didn't serve in the military, then one does'nt have the right to criticize the military. I thought that was what the military was trying to protect.
But I digress.
Let's apply that logic to other issues. I have never been raped nor raped anybody. Using that logic, I cannot criticize rape. Same for murder, theft, line dancing, etc.
I can see them out to dinner with their piggy wives
Clutching for the knives
To eat the bacon...
The White Album rulez!
"..see them stab it
with their steely knives,
but they just can't kill the beast."
Eagles -Hotel California.
My favorite line from that song is....
You check out anytime you like
But you can never leave
"Let's apply that logic to other issues."
It's the logic routinely used to shut down discussions of abortion and, quite recently, rape. If you're not a woman, you have no right to discuss 'women's issues', it seems.
I do not know Lumpy, so I have no idea how much knowledge or experience he has in such matters. He seems knowledgeable in a number of areas, and he appears well-grounded in issues of libertarian ideology.
Mr. Powell is both well-versed and experienced in military matters. However, if his experience comes from an erroneous understanding of the authority of the military, then
'Lumpy' may well be in a position to educate him there. I like to think our military men and women are well-versed in the Constitution. However, when I heard a law professor proclaim once that our Constitution now authorizes the continued existence of a standing army, which was forbidden at the time of its composition, I realize that even those supposedly versed in the Constitution have apparently not actually read it.
The fact that we maintain a standing army in lieu of a militia today does not mean it has been Constitutionally autorized, it merely means that we've deemed it necessary to ignore that limitation and society has permitted that transgression under the pretense of a 'cold war'. There has been no amendment ratified which has altered the wording of the Constitution with regards to the raising of armies.
Thus, to use the continued rape reference: if a speaker is well versed on the issue of rape, either as a victim or a perpetrator, then neither I nor you nor Lumpy are likely to be in a position to disput what they say. However, if they are going to approach their speech from the standpoint that rape is or should be permissible, acceptable, or lawfully authorized, then I think you, Lumpy, and I should be considered to be in a position to challenge them.
I apologize for having commenting on the Eagles' and Beatles' songs. I have never been a member of either of those groups, and am therefore not qualified to have an opinion on the subject.
Shall we discuss toilet paper? I make toilet paper, so I am the only one qualified to have an opinion on the subject of toilet paper. You may use toilet paper, but you are not a member of the workforce that produces toilet paper, so you don't count.
If you don't use toilet paper, you will die a horrible death. Not using toilet paper should be a crime. I think everybody should be forced to use toilet paper. Toilet paper is good for you, good for the economy, and good for America. Only terrorists don't use toilet paper. Are you a terrorist? Do you hate America?
USA USA USA USA
I looked for his bio online, and didn't stumble across one.
Yes, many people do like to know whether or not a candidate is a veteran, and the branch and timeframe in which they served. But, as I've said about Mr. Romney's tax returns, a candidate is free to provide as much or as little information about them as they think will help or harm them in an election.
Having once run for office, I think I'm qualified to comment on that... ;)
"I make toilet paper, so I am the only one qualified to have an opinion on the subject of toilet paper. You may use toilet paper, but you are not a member of the workforce that produces toilet paper, so you don't count."
I use toilet paper, which alone should qualify me. I also own trees and have sold trees to the lumber industry. Trees are used to make toilet paper. Therefore, I am involved in the manufacture of toilet paper, and am qualified to comment.
Cheryl Crow thinks we use too much toilet paper, and should limit ourselves to one square per trip to the loo, except in emergency situations. I think that's unAmerican, and also threatens to weaken our economy by reducing the sale and, therefore, the manufacture of toilet paper.
Ms. Crow says this will save trees. Will it, though? trees grow for a certain time and die, like cornstalks and people. If we use less cornstarch, will that result in fewer cornstalks dying? I don't think it will.
You are not qualified to discuss toilet paper with me, or anybody else. But especially me. Because without me making the sacrifices that I make to produce toilet paper: you would be using corncobs. Is that the kind of America that you want to live in? Not me mister. Not me.
If elected, I would appoint a Toilet Paper czar, and create a new agency, the DofTP, to ensure that all Americans, regardless of race, income, education, or sex, have safe and affordable access to our God given right to toilet paper.
(Yeah, that was a little mean, but I never claimed to be nice.)
it is not surprising that others (besides myself) have been offended from time to time.
-- Posted by Me'Lange on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 4:56 PM
Sounds like stalking and bullying to me. Get over yourself... you are so thin-skinned.
I think you have latched onto something. Candidates should only discuss matters in which they are qualified. In order to be qualified at something I agree with you that candidates should actually be employed or experienced in producing the subject matter. The debates will be compelling. I can talk about toilet paper, playing music, and beer (maybe, I have never sold any of the beer that I make). Jack can talk about cracking backs. The incumbent can talk about whatever it is that she does.
The voters can base their decisions on whatever thing they like best that each candidate produces. A vote for Lump is a vote for beer, rock n roll and toilet paper. I win! God bless America!
Sadly you believe that I am engaging you in a serious discussion, as opposed to entertaining myself while I grill.
If every member of CONgress retired tomorrow, Barnum and Bailey would have a surplus of circus clown applicants. That is how seriously I take the process.
Geeze, some folks don't know how to laugh at themselves. Guess that's where I come in.
"Rick Vandeven, Sadly you seem clueless that you are derespecting voters by disrespecting the process may take very seriously."
Candidates have fish fries and barbeques because some voters are swayed by such things. Not everyone takes politics so seriously.
The things a candidate says are hardly an indicator of what they will do. A lifetime of listening to canddidates and watching them has taught me that.
When I ran for office, I pretty well had a position on every issue that came up, even though my position was, as often as not: that the issue was not in the scope of the federal government.
If only people who are in government are qualified to talk about government, we'll never have anything but professional politicians running things. Methinks the design of our House of Representatives was to prevent that.
A toilet paper maker may well be a good person to send to Congress, given the mess that needs to be cleaned up in Washington...
I bought my own food, and my own wireless device to entertain myself with. No taxpayers were harmed in the writing of this, or any of my posts.
Ever heard the song "Little Boxes"? That's a good song.
What is your question? Have I ever "seerved my country". I don't even know what that means these days. Did I offend you on Facebook. Yes. You and about 10,000 other people. You all should form a club. Am I ruggedly handsome? Yes, just look at that avatar. No phitoshopping required.
Was my offensive comment a dirty joke? Do you remember it? I love a good dirty joke.
Oh, I 'm not a third party candidate. There are only two parties that have a candidate on the ballot in the race I'm in.
If my name wasn't so long, it wouldn't cost so much to put it on the ballots that they are printing anyhow. As it stands, it cost $400,000 per ballot to print "Vandeven". I tried to register as "Mickey Mouse", but they said it gave me an unfair advantage.
Why you ask? Because the position you are asking voters to elect you to holds responsibilities --including foreign policies-- which extend beyond entertaining-- Posted by Me'Lange on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 6:36 PM
Such as a president of the US? Would those responsibilities extend beyond "community organizer"? Practice what you preach.
Your alleged "offensive comment/remark... was it truthful?
I admire you, and I think your ideas are important. Hang in there.
I hear a lot of folks making reference to the right of free speech defended and preserved by the military.
Can someone explain to me when or where the military has protected free speech?
Was it Lincoln's military? Were WW11 GIs fighting for American free speech? Maybe it is more recent folks that served in the military that have protected our free speech.
The way I see it, our own government is our biggest threat to free speech.
Also I think I remember some talk about the cost of electing folks for office and that brings another question to mind. Who spends the most, America providing for the president and first family or England keeping the Royal family Royal?
You don't remember the specifics, yet you squawk about "it" a couple of time a week. I guess if I got offended 15 to 20 times per day, I wouldn't remember the details either. You're correct, I could care less. Offending people like you is no great accomplishment.
Call the sec of state, and ask her what it cost to print "Vandeven" on a ballot which was going to be printed anyway. Once again, I don't care. Obviously it is an issue to you, and I'm sure that Sec Carnahan's staff will be happy to accomidate you. If you harrass them enough, you may just get an answer.
Since I have answered so many of your questions, perhaps you could answer something about yourself that I am sure that I am not alone in wondering: how many cats do you own?
"Can someone explain to me when or where the military has protected free speech?"
As best I recall, when I signed up I took an oath the 'preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States', which would include the Bill or Rights. Now, I'll grant you not every war has been against enemies of the Constitition. Indeed, World War II was probably the last time the freedoms entailed in that document were threatened by our enemies, but we who served serve with an obligation toward that end.
I was fortunate enough to serve in peace-time. But I believe our presence and our willingness to respond to threats to freedom quickly and effectively deterred agression against our freedoms, and thus we, even by not fighting, protected our freedoms, including the freedom of speech.
This is one of the most entertaining threads yet. Keep it going!!!
"Article 19 states that "Everyone has the right to the freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".] http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=408
Forget it Rick V., this Article does not include you.
The march went well. There was only two of us as expected. A gentleman from Sikeston drove up just to see if anyone was protesting, and stood with us and chatted awhile. We had several honks of support, a couple of obigatory one fingered salutes, and a lot of nervous WASPy types who were too freaked out to even look our way.
The weather was pleasant, and the conversation was thought provoking. Good times!
Rick V, What did you accomplish?
Me'Lange, I'm not sure if we are on the "same sheet of music" as my late friend used to say.
Does the bill of rights pertain only to government restricting the citizens God given right to speak out against govenment or does it apply to any speak out and protest considered "free speech"? I can't remember without rereading, is the term "free speech" penned in the constitution or bill of rights?
We didn't hear from you yesterday... was wondering if maybe you had eleminated yourself from cyber space with your exercises in problem elimination. ;-)
"~DC, In the interest of full disclosure, did you serve in the military?"
You answered my question with a question. I believe that's a diversionary tactic. Do you remember my question? I'll repeat it for you so you don't have to scroll up:
"Let me see if I've got this right...if you never were in the military you don't have the right to question, speak out or protest against military actions?"
So, if you will answer me, I will answer you. Fair enough?
Wheels, Yesterday wasn't a productive day as my attention was a bit distracted. Today I surprised myself by out running some procrastination and taking care of several things about to bite me if left unattended. Life is good! I have two more days to get ready for some more of what pleases me.
"I have two more days to get ready for some more of what pleases me."
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 2, 2012, at 10:00 PM
You, sir, are a mess. :)
No one is debating Lumpy does not have the right to intrude upon those who have choose to attend the Powell seminar.
Posted by Me'Lange on Wed, Oct 3, 2012, at 3:11 AM
"intrude upon". Interesting choice of words.
'Free Speech' has been deemed to include political and religious expression of ideas, as well as such things as nude dancing, flag burning, pornography, and 'performance art'. It seems to cover a broad spectrum.
Here is a summary of what General Powell discussed. I see nothing warlike in his words, on the contrary, I have found soldiers to be much more peace-loving than most civilians.
Introduction -- Gen. Powell was introduced by the Southeast Missouri State University President. The General served as a soldier for over 30 years, rising to the position of Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and as a diplomat in the role of Secretary of State for 5 years. He was aptly described as a "reluctant warrior" because of his insistence on exhausting all diplomatic and non-military options before considering the use of force. He later described what became known as "Powell Doctrine." This meant that once the decision to use our military power was made, it should be with overwhelming force, applied quickly and decisively, to end the conflict as fast as possible with minimum cost to the United States. Gen. Powell's interests, now that his government service is over, center on crusading for improvements in education. His American Promise Alliance works toward that goal, and through it, he strongly supports the argument that education should be the top priority in public life. The presentation covered several broad areas: anecdotes from his government service, observations on changes in society and technology, opinions on current affairs, and proposals for leadership and government action.
Anecdotes -- Gen. Powell started out by describing his interactions with the Honor Flight program bringing WW II veterans to Washington DC to visit memorials. He thanked them for their service and they expressed their admiration for his. He related stories connecting his habits to leadership. One was how he simply sent small cards with notes of congratulations to staff members, and found later that these handwritten 4 x 6" cards were framed, prized possessions. Another was how preferable parking in the State Department garage was directly related to how vehicle occupants treated the attendants, with those taking the time to say hi, or good morning, got the better spots. He told what took place when President Reagan sent him to see Premier Gorbachev prior to a Presidential visit. Gorbachev accused him of being obsessed with fighting Russians in Europe. The General thought to himself, I don't care what you say, you're still a commie. Gorbachev then laughed, and said that he was sorry but the US would have to find a new enemy. There were also anecdotes concerning America and immigration. He told of a Japanese businessman who said that New York City was his favorite, because people there were so comfortable with strangers and foreigners that they even asked him for directions. Also in NYC Gen. Powell professed continual amazement and delight in the variety of immigrants and international flavor of the city. This was punctuated by his tradition of getting hot dogs from local carts, normally run by immigrants. In mentioning his transition from government service to private life he said one regret was losing the Air Force 757 that flew him around as Secretary of State. Now he flies commercial most of the time and must deal with the TSA, but can't complain about it as he helped put that agency in place.
Observations on changes in society and technology -- After retirement from government service he has taken a deep interest in changes and advancements in technology, particularly in the communications field. He is involved in venture capital initiatives in California, but receives much of his education in technology from his children and grandchildren who have pushed him into twitter, facebook and iPads. His grandchildren became upset when their grandmother started driving the without turning the GPS on. These enhancements in technology are influencing societies worldwide. He pointed out that you can't hide anything anymore. The "Arab Spring" was enabled by smart phones and social networks. He also added that those nations in North Africa are doing democracy their way. They are listening to their own people, not necessarily us. The real key to progress is helping them to improve their economies.
Opinions on current affairs -- He was glad that we had extricated ourselves from Iraq and should be working on the same goal in Afghanistan. Gen. Powell recommended speeding up our drawdown there. In having dealt for years with the Middle East and its relation with terrorism, he was adamant in counseling the country to protect ourselves but not to close ourselves off from the rest of the world. We should continue to welcome students, businessmen, tourists and all manner of legal visitors. The last thing we should do is shut down, we cannot be afraid of the "terrorists." We are a world of nations, and others have recognized that creation of wealth is good for them and for their international standing or place in the world. A related issue is energy where our needs are up and sources must become more sophisticated. He alluded to our standing in the world, pointing out it is not the same as once, but we are still number one. Others may be closer, and deserve respect for their efforts, but we are always looked to for example and inspiration. Ambitious people from around the world still want to come to America.
Proposals on leadership and government action -- In his travels around the nation, he has seen people concerned about their future, but they have not lost their confidence nor a sense of optimism. He mentioned that it was a shame that it could not be bottled and distributed. He recalled the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, where the founding fathers worked to create a union from nothing, and compromised to create a nation. He compared their attitude with the current Congress failing to compromise on the budget process, calling it disgraceful. The people are in charge and cautioned all to not listen to the extremists. He advised the audience to believe that the future remains to be determined by people themselves, live a moral life and think about how family can begin learning at home. Gen. Powell related a leadership example from his Secretary of State days under president Reagan. He was briefing the President on a variety of issues and problems in Africa and the Middle East. All the while the President seemed to be looking past him, out a balcony window toward the Rose Garden. When he finished he asked the President if he needed any more information on these problems. President Reagan ignored that and said the squirrels out there had almost finished all of the nuts. When he asked again about problems, the President said he was not concerned, and those were your problems and he felt sure that you would solve them. That's why I put you in the job. A good leader has good people to solve problems. Gen. Powell also discussed leadership from his military career. He mentioned that the US Army Infantry Officer School at Fort Benning had a leadership motto that was, "Follow me!" He expanded on this indicating that it is essential to give your people a sense of mission, goals, and especially purpose. He said it was crucial that subordinates have a common purpose and realize that there is no such thing as an unimportant job. To inspire soldiers or employees, the leader must be selfless, not selfish. Once you have established the actual trust of your troops, they will follow you, if nothing else out of curiosity to see what happens next. A final comment made by the General in response to a question on the need to vote, he stated that it was disloyal and un-American to not register and vote.
I wonder why you would challenge something, and make no effort to DO something about it?
Bear in mind people, Gen. Powell is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR).
Why is this interesting? Guess who else is on the list under the Chairman Emeritus, David Rockefeller:
In 1921, Edward Mandell House and his friends formed the Council on Foreign Relations whose purpose right from its conception was to destroy the freedom and independence of the United States, and to lead the country into a one-world government.
""Yes, we all know a comment you made about women on facebook offended me."
"We" ? I am not any part of "We" , I am me and not offended at all ."
Rick how did we all know?
I don't do facebook, so how was I to know?
When did we all know?
Who told us so that we would know?
Do we even now know what offended?
This is so confusing!
"...than foot the bill for multi-million dollar budget entertainer who will not answer questions before he is elected."
Didn't we already do that with Al Franken?
Posting a comment requires free registration: