Is that from “Burning down the House”?

OK. Who believes THIS one?

Stun guns ’safe’, study suggests
from BBC World …

Did they survey the people killed by tasers?

… I fear, if BigDog is advising the Mrs from the East Wing. He of “let bygones be bygones” over Iran/Contra and other assorted errors and crimes of the Reagan/Bush regime.

I truly believe that he was compromised by previous knowledge of Iran-Contra, especially the guns/drugs trade being carried out of the Mena, Arkansas airport. …

And, that damned “Liberal press gave him a pass.

If we had a People’s press the Truth might out a bit more often.

Thank God for the Internet. It gives a little room for discussion and revealing the Truth and acting on that.

When one starts from the belief that violence is an acceptable way to solve problems, one tends to resort to solving problems violently.

Every base impulse is a slippery slope. If it were not, there’d be no need for civilization.
JMO.

We work from basic desires and fears. Fascistic regimes like Bush & Co simply absolve their followers of any sense of responsibility by telling them they’re “right”, they’re “God’s chosen”, “the Liberals are evil” and the like. After that all they have to provide is ‘plausibility’ and the followers will do about anything.

What’s missing in the followers is their very own Values.

“It was mishandled in a lot of ways,” he said. “The administration went in with a plausible approach and a plausible strategy, but it was wrong.” Err… Houston, we have a problem…!!!

All those idiots required was ‘plausibility’.

If any of them had actually wondered if there was Truth to what they were doing, then maybe I’d have some sympathy for them.

Nightmares forever!

More like a burr in the ass of progress.

newtonusr @ 306

Just my 2 cents, and I’m not standing in for burns here. But I have always, and will always contrast “conservative” from “movement conservative”, and I think that is at the heart of burns contention.

I think that’s a bit like the claim that Communism was okay…it was just that it was never really applied correctly.

If every instance of a “philosophies” application in practice causes more grief and chaos – then the reality is that there is something deeply flawed in that philosophy. It lacks the “checks” necessary for its “proponents” to restrain themselves when they actually reach positions of power.

In addition words are how they are APPLIED. Modern conservatives have permanently and irreparably tainted the meaning of that term…whatever the original formulators of the concept dreamed it meant in the 18th century.

If a definition of terms is the criteria or determining “conservative principles”, then I use these-
The conservative I have in mind thinks he should stay out of my bedroom, my church, and my wallet.

The “movement conservative” not only wants into my bedroom, but wants to officiate.

The “movement conservative” also wants me to worship and to do it his way, or be damned.

And the “movement conservative” wants all the money on the planet and is willing to kill the whole planet to get it.

Krugman’s examination goes back a whopping 30 years to find the genesis of modern conservatism, as if before that day, we were all happy liberals on the verge of a catastrophic intellectual split. This is a disservice to honest discourse and the sloppiness behind this premise is not Krugman at his best.

CTuttle @ 297

I concur, but, Burns seemed to disagree…!!!

Just my 2 cents, and I’m not standing in for burns here. But I have always, and will always contrast “conservative” from “movement conservative”, and I think that is at the heart of burns contention.

I think that’s a bit like the claim that Communism was okay…it was just that it was never really applied correctly.

If every instance of a “philosophies” application in practice causes more grief and chaos – then the reality is that there is something deeply flawed in that philosophy. It lacks the “checks” necessary for its “proponents” to restrain themselves when they actually reach positions of power.

In addition words are how they are APPLIED. Modern conservatives have permanently and irreparably tainted the meaning of that term…whatever the original formulators of the concept dreamed it meant in the 18th century.

newtonusr @ 306

Just my 2 cents, and I’m not standing in for burns here. But I have always, and will always contrast “conservative” from “movement conservative”, and I think that is at the heart of burns contention.

***
newtonusr: Ah…a valid point, methinks. As devil’s advocate, though, I wonder how much those distinctions matter to 99% of those who vote Republican nowadays?

You could be completely right about the voters. No argument there. But when Krugman is so sloppy so as not to distinguish, I wonder what he’s doing, saying. I love the shrill one, btw.

CTuttle @ 297

I concur, but, Burns seemed to disagree…!!!

Just my 2 cents, and I’m not standing in for burns here. But I have always, and will always contrast “conservative” from “movement conservative”, and I think that is at the heart of burns contention.

***
newtonusr: Ah…a valid point, methinks. As devil’s advocate, though, I wonder how much those distinctions matter to 99% of those who vote Republican nowadays?