Block Out Another Member's Posts?

[Tim Gratz]

John, by "you" I infer you meant "U" as in "USA".

Yoiur question is a good one. I have not studied the Iraqi Constitution sufficiently to answer your question.

By the way, John F. Kennedy was obviously a "republican" in the sense that he cheered the republican form of the U.S. government.

The republican form is intended to prevent the tyranny of a majority. It recognizes that pure democracy can lead to unfortunate consequences on occasion so checks and balances are appropriate on the right of a majority to make law.

In his rightly famous book "Profiles in Courage" JFK examined the careers of U.S. Senators who had the political courage to resist the sometimes temporary opinions of the majority of their constituents. That courage often cost the politician his career. Sometimes, not always, history proved the politician was correct in opposing the will of his constituents.

It is, of course, an interesting question whether a politician should feel obligated to follow the will of the people who elected him, if that will is clear.

Edited July 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

The republican form is intended to prevent the tyranny of a majority. 

You obviously prefer the tyranny of a minority.

[Tim Gratz]

Actually, John, tyranny relates to the oppressive power of the government.

Conservatives abhor tyranny which is one of the reasons conservatives resist big government. A powerful government has the ability to create tyrannical conditions. And you of course are familiar with the most famous quotation from your fellow countryman Lord Acton.

You might want to read Robert Conquest's most recent book ("The Dragons of Expectation"). I have not yet but plan to do so.

Edited July 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Actually, John, tyranny relates to the oppressive power of the government.

Conservatives abhor tyranny which is one of the reasons conservatives resist big government.  A powerful government has the ability to create tyrannical conditions. 

Why do you prefer the tyranny of “big business”? The whole idea of democracy is to protect the majority from the small group that control our lives in order to maintain their wealth and privilege. They cannot do it on their own and therefore have to rely on foot soldiers like you who have no idea how the political process works. How they laugh at people like you.

[Tim Gratz]

John, it is because of business that America has the standard of living that we enjoy.

Something socialists can never understand.

And it would be impolite of me to belabor the point but it was the vitality of the Americn capitalist system that built the ships and planes that allowed the Americans to save the derrieres of the English (and other freedon-loving Europeans) in WW II. So every time you do not need to salute a swastika, remember it was capitalism--good ol American big business (the shibboleth of the left) that saved the good old Union Jack!

The hospitality business is the biggest business and employer in the Keys. It does not pay the greatest, but it offers many many jobs to people who want to live in this beautiful place I am fortunate to call home.

Which is not to say that there should never be any government regulation of business. Some regulationis both important and necessary.

Edited July 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

It is worthwhile going to these threads to see why [Tim] is trying to hijack them. In virtually every case he is trying to redirect the focus of the thread.

John, it is finally time that I respond to this. I think a fair examination will reveal that we go down the Castro trail only when someone else starts it off--by, for instance, claiming the assassins were falsely framing Castro. I am not trying to hijack but when comments like that are made, respect for the memory of LHO (who was probably a foot soldier in our war against Castro) compels a response.

See if you can find a thread (that I did not start) that someone else did not first raise the Castro question prompting my response. I don't think it ever happened. If I am wrong, correct me.

By the way, be careful where you use the word "hijack" (particularly in the vicinity of airports!).

Edited July 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

I agree about his constant attempts to hijack threads. Only yesterday he posted the word "No" on the: "Is America a Democracy" thread. I would have thought he would have been willing to defend George Bush against the claims that he is the most corrupt president in history. However, he does not appear to find the words to do so. Instead he posts on the thread in an attempt to block off others who might be interested in reading the thread.

John, I can say this because I continue to admire and respect much of your research and posting.

But with respect to the above paragraph, you again violated the Forum rule about judging other members' motivations in postings. And this time when you jumped to a conclusion about my motivation, you shot yourself in the foot. Any well-read historian or political scientist would understand why an old right-winger like myself would strongly object to characterizing America's form of government as a democracy. I said no more than "No" to see who would catch my drift. Should have known it would be Pat.

So, perhaps you should be just a tad more careful about following the rule that you formulated about not rying to second-guess people's motives. Such seond-guessing can only be an assumption, and (I assume) you know the old saying about assumptions.

Edited July 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

To return to the original post, it is certainly true that one can eliminate the danger of having one's opinion modified if one studiously avoids those comments written from an opposing perspective. Course one would think such a course necessary only for persons unable to defend their positions.

But if one blocks all opposing viewpoints, this Forum could hardly be called a ""debate", could it?

Frankly, I cherish (literally) well-reasoned arguments that oppose my viewpoints.

I therefore like the quote from Oscar Wilde used in all of James' post:

Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar, and often convincing. - Oscar Wilde

Edited July 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

What infuriates me is not that he takes a contrary position, or even one for which there is so little evidence. It is that Tim will not marshal what little evidence there is for his position and present it for debate. Instead, we hear that some Cuban guy's aunt thought he might have been involved. Voila - ironclad proof.

I appreciate Robert's point in upholding debate. I know Robert well enough to know that would have been his position. And without in any way minimizing his sincerity (for I know he is) Robert can also afford this position because he is intelligent enough to intelligently articulate and defend his position. And I have learned from some of his posts. [i can anticipate his response here: he will copy and paste what I just wrote and then add in his usual way of humor mixed with sarcasm: but not enough!]

At the risk of being accused of hijacking this post, duty compels me to respond substantively to his point about Miguelito's aunt. Miguelito was reported to be a DGI agent trained at a KGB training center in Minsk. He was reported to be in Dallas on November 22nd. Upon his return to Cuba, his aunt was reported to have remarked that she had reason to believe he was involved in the assassination. "Ironclad proof" as Robert sarcastically says. Perhaps not but I never claimed it was iron-clad; nor have I ever claimed ANY iron-clad proof exists. But good, perhaps strong evidence? I would think so. So how does Robert attempt to minimize it? First, rather than identifying Miguelito as a reported DGI agent he calls him "some Cuban guy" then belittles the informant as being his aunt. What's wrong with an aunt as an informant, for heaven's sake? In Cuban culture, aunts are often fairly close relatives. It's not like the informant was his second-cousin once removed. Notice Robert has to use sarcasm to minimize this datum since he apparently has no information to substantively attack the aunt. He does not say she was a secret agent for the CIA; that she was distantly related to Rolando Masferrer or Manuel Artime; that she was a drunk or a prostitute. No, the only thing she has going against her, according to Robert, is that she was Miguelito's aunt. I think Dawn can assure us that if she tried to downplay the testimony of an informant simply because the informant was the defendant's aunt, she would be laughed out of the courtroom if not out of the courthouse.

I say the information from Miguelito's aunt stands until Robert can offe a real reason to rebut her.

Edited July 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Greg Parker]

I whole-heartedly agree with the views expressed here by John and Robert. Kicking Tim out is not the way to deal with the problem, and is almost akin to a victory for him, insofar as it brings to the forum a pre-emption (has he broken forum rules, or not?) most here find so despicable in other contexts.

That said, I have always believed the major flaw with open forums such as this is -that they are open. Too many cooks can, and sometimes do, turn gourmet dinners into dogs breakfasts.

There are posters here who have similar ideas, or who, despite differences of opinion, try and help each other. I would suggest, if it is at all possible, that we have sub-forums limited to X number of participants. Posters could nominate themselves or others to form such a sub-forum where they could discuss set topics sans Tim and his ilk. If/when consenus is reached on a particular topic, they may, at their own discresion, post the results here.

Tim, of course, would have the same opportunity to form such a sub-group if he could get anyone interested in joining him.

This may in fact, even be one way of moving forward.

Edited July 31, 2005 by Greg Parker

[Tim Gratz]

Greg wrote:

Posters could nominate themselves or others to form such a sub-forum where they could discuss set topics sans Tim and his ilk.

Unfortunately, I do not think I even have any "ilk" to join me here. On this Forum, I am a minority of one, I suspect.

But I can be a gentleman. If one of the learned members of this Forum wants to start a thread proposing that Jackie's mother did it (or some equal absurdity, like Sam Papich) and wants to stipulate that I stay off that thread to let the nonsense continue unabated by any moments of sanity, I'll honor that request.

[Anders MacGregor-Thunell]

And it would be impolite of me to belabor the point but it was the vitality of the Americn capitalist system that built the ships and planes that allowed the Americans to save the derrieres of the English (and other freedon-loving Europeans) in WW II. So every time you do not need to salute a swastika, remember it was capitalism--good ol American big business (the shibboleth of the left) that saved the good old Union Jack!

Rewriting history again Tim? This is quite an ignorant interpretation. If you sat down and actually studied WWII you would get a different picture. The US played one part in this war together with many other nations. It was on the Eastern front in Europe we first started to see the success of Germany come to an end due to the skills and sacrifices of the Soviet troops...

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

What infuriates me is not that he takes a contrary position, or even one for which there is so little evidence.  It is that Tim will not marshal what little evidence there is for his position and present it for debate.  Instead, we hear that some Cuban guy's aunt thought he might have been involved.  Voila - ironclad proof. 

I appreciate Robert's point in upholding debate.  I know Robert well enough to know that would have been his position.  And without in any way minimizing his sincerity (for I know he is) Robert can also afford this position because he is intelligent enough to intelligently articulate and defend his position.  And I have learned from some of his posts.  [i can anticipate his response here:  he will copy and paste what I just wrote and then add in his usual way of humor mixed with sarcasm: but not enough!]

At the risk of being accused of hijacking this post, duty compels me

"Duty?"  To whom?  To what?  Are you still in the military?  Is this a noble act of patriotism?  Please do expound...

to respond substantively to his point about Miguelito's aunt.  Miguelito was reported to be a DGI agent trained at a KGB training center in Minsk. 

Citation, please.  Assertion isn't proof.

He was reported to be in Dallas on November 22nd. 

Citation, please.  Assertion isn't proof.

Upon his return to Cuba, his aunt was reported to have remarked that she had reason to believe he was involved in the assassination. 

Citation, please.  Assertion isn't proof.

"Ironclad proof" as Robert sarcastically says.  Perhaps not but I never claimed it was iron-clad; nor have I ever claimed ANY iron-clad proof exists.

In the half a year I've been here, you've offered many damning assertions and proof for none of it.  Where you're concerned, I don't demand "iron-clad" proof.  At this juncture, "tin-foil" proof would be a vast improvement over your prior track record.

But good, perhaps strong evidence?  I would think so. 

A congenital inability to distinguish between "possible," "probable" and "certain" levels of evidence may explain why you have swapped the Bar for the Check-In counter.  That's your cross to bear, amigo.  Without a reference to when these "facts" were harvested, and by whom, who knows what is being reaped?  But then, were you to post the provenance of these data, you leave the "reports" open to the scrutiny they deserve and the punishing judgement they invite.  Which is why you rattle our cages with empty assertions, but refuse to provide the genesis for those assertions.  Geez, Tim, why not just bring Russo's doorstopper to work with you and cite the pertinent footnotes?  Too much effort, is it? 

So how does Robert attempt to minimize it?  First, rather than identifying Miguelito as a reported DGI agent

He's not, unless and until you demonstrate it to be so.  Assertion isn't proof.  Ball's in your court, ex-counsellor.   

he calls him "some Cuban guy" then belittles the informant as being his aunt.  What's wrong with an aunt as an informant, for heaven's sake?  In Cuban culture, aunts are often fairly close relatives.  It's not like the informant was his second-cousin once removed.  Notice Robert has to use sarcasm to minimize this datum since he apparently has no information to substantively attack the aunt. 

If you refuse to provide the basis for your assertion, who knows what to make of it?  You know, for a guy who claims to have so much damning evidence of Castro's complicity up his sleeve, you're incredibly miserly when it comes to actually providing it to the audience you seek to influence.  Why is that?  You want us to believe the aunt?  Tell us why we should.  

He does not say she was a secret agent for the CIA; that she was distantly related to Rolando Masferrer or Manuel Artime; that she was a drunk or a prostitute.  No, the only thing she has going against her, according to Robert, is that she was Miguelito's aunt.  I think Dawn can assure us that if she tried to downplay the testimony of an informant simply because the informant was the defendant's aunt, she would be laughed out of the courtroom if not out of the courthouse.

I'm sure Dawn can, and hopefully will, speak for herself.  But since we're not dealing with testimony, and since we cannot cross-examine the aunt to determine whether she has any animus toward her nephew unrelated to the case at hand, we must place premium importance upon what little we can know about her.  Which is what, ex-counsellor?  She's your witness, for God's sake.  Why will you not post what she said, to whom she said it, when it was delivered to US authorities and what they made of it?

I say the information from Miguelito's aunt stands until Robert can offe a real reason to rebut her.

Since you've done nothing more than make an unsubstantiated, unconfirmed, unverified, blind-sourced assertion of no discernible validity, what's to rebut?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

And it would be impolite of me to belabor the point but it was the vitality of the Americn capitalist system that built the ships and planes that allowed the Americans to save the derrieres of the English (and other freedon-loving Europeans) in WW II. So every time you do not need to salute a swastika, remember it was capitalism--good ol American big business (the shibboleth of the left) that saved the good old Union Jack!

Rewriting history again Tim? This is quite an ignorant interpretation. If you sat down and actually studied WWII you would get a different picture. The US played one part in this war together with many other nations. It was on the Eastern front in Europe we first started to see the success of Germany come to an end due to the skills and sacrifices of the Soviet troops...

Well said, Anders. Also, let's not forget the sacrifices made by the Soviet civilian population, since the Soviets sustained about half of the estimated deaths in that war. Quite a contribution, but apparently it is Yanqui ass that demands to be kissed.

Meanwhile, at the time of those Soviet sacrifices, the US sat on the sidelines and played "neutral" for a damning two-plus years. Apparently this bastion of freedom and democracy couldn't locate its misplaced gallantry and nobility until both Japan and Germany had declared war upon it as well. Had neither Japan nor Germany demanded that the US get involved, I suggest it unlikely that it would ever have done so, but would have contented itself with selling arms and materiel to both sides, as is its history.

So, Tim, for your country's cowardly refusal to tackle the fascist scourge when all others did, and your capitalist captains of industry's record of selling their goods to the enemy throughout, and your country's entry into the war only when it was left with no other choice, other countries owe you what, exactly?

For a guy who prattles on about the importance of reading history, Tim might profit from doing a bit more of it himself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mark Knight]

Ladies and gentlemen, is the above not yet another hijacking of the thread by Mr. Gratz?

As far as WWII goes, it wasn't capitalism that bailed out the world with ships and planes. Capitalism, as I understand it, operates when the manufacturer of goods determines which goods he will produce and sell to the public at what price, and the public determines whether or not the manufacturer is successful. During WWII, it was the US government who determined what products would be produced at which plants, and not the corporations and individuals who owned the plants. So it was this necessity-led foray into socialism that ultimately determined what planes and ships and trucks and guns were produced in which plants, the plants themselves existing due to prewar capitalism. After WWII, US industry was allowed to reclaim control of their own plants and produce whatever products they saw fit to provide to US consumers, signaling a return to capitalism. Ditto for rationing; while necessary to ensure adequate supplies of strategic goods for combat forces, a market-based, capitalistic system of purchasing whatever goods one desired and could afford simply did not exist during the war [black-market operations notwithstanding]. And official "ceiling prices" on goods sold took the socialistic tentacles of government on down to the level of the local store owner.

So, with the government determining what one could manufacture, what one could purchase, and the amounts one could purchase, as well as the prices that could be charged for certain products...how can this in any way, shape, or form be construed as capitalism and not socialism?

Or maybe "socialism" is, in Tim's mind, merely a "modified" form of "capitalism."

Before Tim gets the wrong impression, I will state for the record that I am a strong backer of capitalism, having grown up with my parents and grandparents all working in small businesses owned by family members including themselves. . .and harboring my own dream of one day owning my own business. But for the sake of honesty, what was going on during WWII was more socialism than capitalism.

And surely even Mr. Gratz can grasp that truth, and admit it.