Indoctrinating the military to commit genocide.

I have no issues with making taxation more voluntary. If funding for some of these controversial programs becomes almost a subscription tax, I am all for it.

As for IRS targeting groups, TEA Party groups were targeted approx 100 times more frequently. I understand one of the standards for racial discrimination suits relies on disproportionate effect. That is greater impact than its proportion in the total population. I suggest 100 to 1 meets that standard when pure chance would produce 1 to 1.

Eyal wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Of course there is the question of self-defense. How do we prepare to defend against foreign aggressors? The Constitution already mandates the Feds support provions for an armed defense. Pacifists would have to change the Constitution to eliminate the military altogether.

There's nothing in the Constitution, AFAIK, mandating how the revenue to support armed forces is raised. So exmpting pacifists from taxes so as to avoid contirbuting to the military (for simplicities sake, assume the pacifists in question oppose violence under any circumstances).

PeterZ wrote:There is also the IRS targeting TEA Party organisations to prevent their getting propped tax treatment.

IIRC there were also quite a few liberal groups being investigated at the same time (I'm about to leave for the airport, I'll try to dig up the links in a day or so).

I have enough contacts in the US military who have had similar experiences to know it is plausible.

Governor Palin has enough personal contacts at Fort Hood that she probably has confirmation from witnesses.

Basically your response here is that people whose political views diverge from your own can be dismissed as liars not because of any proven lack of integrity but because you do not like them.

You prove the point.

Thank you.

What I cannot help but notice that this allegation is;

(a) being supported by Ms Palin;
(b) on the Fox News website;
(c) pushes the Tea Party line of being hard-done-by "The evil gubmint hates us because we are so patriotic, yadda-yadda".

I'm being VERY polite (a rare state ), when saying that I consider the credibility of the claim is less than zero.[/quote]

Daryl wrote:Namelessfly's paragraph "Many secular laws that are not at all controversial such as a near prohibition on killing (self defense, war, executions are exceptions) and laws against theft, robbery and rape were originally formulated by people whose political positions were informed by their religious beliefs. The fact that so many divergent religious traditions could agree on these laws suggests both the possibility that there exists an objective, secular morality as well as the possible validity of religious thought." is a new subtopic so I'll comment. I fully agree with what's said except for the execution bit, as most countries don't have capital punishment. Overall it states the situation better than I could have done. Good people have similar values regardless of religious or otherwise backgrounds.
The abortion debate does indeed hinge on when a foetus becomes a person. Somewhere between conception and a full term natural birth.

Absolutely the point!

It is valid to argue that a small cluster of undifferentiated cells are no more human than a sperm or unfertilized ovum.

It is equally valid to argue that a developing faetus with abetting heart, brain, brain waves and volitional movement is human.

The SCOTUS vaccutately identified the issues in Roe vs Wade when they made the three trimester destination.

Now the politics of abortion has evolved to the point where it is argued (successfully by Obama in Illionoise) that fetuses who survive abortion to be born alive should be terminated by withholding medical care.

No one should be demonized for wanting to debate these profound questions in the political arena.

IMHO, there is a very real issue of a woman's right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches. You can't enforce a ban on abortion unless you periodically pregnancy test every woman in the country. However; there has to be a middle ground.

Regarding Fox's spinmeistering: Ditto to every single one of the major networks. I've notice a distinct tendency to decide on the general story first, and then find (or make) facts to match.

Why is everyone so surprised? This has been going on for a long time. "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." William Randolph Hearst 1897

Pentagon reaction is evidence that this story is valid.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/ ... xtremists/

My guess is that the worst offenders are operating outside Pentagon guidelines.

The reference to the Southern Poverty Law Center as a civil rights group is egregious. They are a hate group who specializes in demonizing political enemies and even condone mass murder.

biochem wrote:

Regarding Fox's spinmeistering: Ditto to every single one of the major networks. I've notice a distinct tendency to decide on the general story first, and then find (or make) facts to match.

Why is everyone so surprised? This has been going on for a long time. "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." William Randolph Hearst 1897

The problem is not the bias. The problem is that the lack of diversity in the bias is so profound that it becomes difficult to notice the bias.

There was a time when every city had two or more newspapers that had divergent points of view. Now they are almost all very liberal. Television news was once very unbiased (FCC rules) but now except for FOX they are very liberal.

A big problem is the growing influence of Europeans in US journalism and politics. Their interests are no more congruent with US interests that the USSR's were during the cold war.

namelessfly wrote:I have enough contacts in the US military who have had similar experiences to know it is plausible.

Governor Palin has enough personal contacts at Fort Hood that she probably has confirmation from witnesses.

Basically your response here is that people whose political views diverge from your own can be dismissed as liars not because of any proven lack of integrity but because you do not like them.

You prove the point.

Thank you.

So, should I take from the above that if one 'likes' Ms Palin, Fox News and the Tea Party then they must be correct?

Correction: I dismiss the allegation because, as well as the absence of any other corroboration (so far), those three elements are, to me, an almost-perfect trifecta of crazy.

Whether or not my attitude for this particular trifecta is accurate, I will let history decide. But I think I'm pretty safe there.

If you would care to actually cite some real sources / data in support, I will be happy to read it.

There is this story here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/ ... xtremists/

The multiple attributions to Pentago sources who concede rather than dispute the problem with the training program verifies the story.

I am not in the habit of dismissing news stories from liberal leaning journalists just because they are liberal. Usually; there is some truth but with a liberal spin to it.

As for Governor Palin's credibility, her predictions on Obamacare and the Obama economy have been prescient. You probably dismiss the Governor because you believe that the "I can see Russia from my house" is an accurate quote.

It will be interesting to see what you spew to justify your opinion of her.

7thsealord wrote:

namelessfly wrote:I have enough contacts in the US military who have had similar experiences to know it is plausible.

Governor Palin has enough personal contacts at Fort Hood that she probably has confirmation from witnesses.

Basically your response here is that people whose political views diverge from your own can be dismissed as liars not because of any proven lack of integrity but because you do not like them.

You prove the point.

Thank you.

So, should I take from the above that if one 'likes' Ms Palin, Fox News and the Tea Party then they must be correct?

Correction: I dismiss the allegation because, as well as the absence of any other corroboration (so far), those three elements are, to me, an almost-perfect trifecta of crazy.

Whether or not my attitude for this particular trifecta is accurate, I will let history decide. But I think I'm pretty safe there.

If you would care to actually cite some real sources / data in support, I will be happy to read it.

namelessfly wrote:There is this story here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/ ... xtremists/

The multiple attributions to Pentago sources who concede rather than dispute the problem with the training program verifies the story.

I'd find it a bloody sight more plausible if you could cite some actual sources - especially ones that aren't Fox News or the Tea Party. But I do find it interesting how limited the coverage seems to have been so far.

namelessfly wrote:I am not in the habit of dismissing news stories from liberal leaning journalists just because they are liberal.

Now there is a coincidence. Neither am I. But, despite what you may think, I am certain that your definition of "liberal" differs from mine.

I personally only use 'Liberal' in reference to a major political party here in Australia, which is probably closer to your Republicans than anything else (rightish-leaning, conservative, business-oriented, etc.).

namelessfly wrote:Usually; there is some truth but with a liberal spin to it.

Usually? I'll let that be. In many cases, quite probably. But I (still) openly question the accuracy in this instance. Asserting that I could only be doing this because "I don't like liberals" is unjustifiable.

namelessfly wrote:As for Governor Palin's credibility, her predictions on Obamacare and the Obama economy have been prescient. You probably dismiss the Governor because you believe that the "I can see Russia from my house" is an accurate quote.

Assuming the alleged predictions were actually made beforehand, which may or may not be the case. I tend to be skeptical of predictions allegedly made by ANY politician - the job calls for them to make a lot of these anyhow, just on the off chance they can later be "proven" right about something.

(We Aussies tend to be cynical, especially about politicians - of any creed, colour or flag.)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day - and doesn't have to be prescient for this to happen.

My direct exposure to US pollies is relatively limited (thankfully), but Ms Palin has simply never impressed me at all. End of story. Obviously, you feel otherwise.

namelessfly wrote:It will be interesting to see what you spew to justify your opinion of her.

Likewise, I'm sure. How about we both try to keep away from personal shots?

I agree about keeping away from the personal shots.

I am curious to know what you THINK Governor Palin has done to earn your contempt?

7thsealord wrote:

namelessfly wrote:There is this story here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/ ... xtremists/

The multiple attributions to Pentago sources who concede rather than dispute the problem with the training program verifies the story.

I'd find it a bloody sight more plausible if you could cite some actual sources - especially ones that aren't Fox News or the Tea Party. But I do find it interesting how limited the coverage seems to have been so far.

namelessfly wrote:I am not in the habit of dismissing news stories from liberal leaning journalists just because they are liberal.

Now there is a coincidence. Neither am I. But, despite what you may think, I am certain that your definition of "liberal" differs from mine.

I personally only use 'Liberal' in reference to a major political party here in Australia, which is probably closer to your Republicans than anything else (rightish-leaning, conservative, business-oriented, etc.).

namelessfly wrote:Usually; there is some truth but with a liberal spin to it.

Usually? I'll let that be. In many cases, quite probably. But I (still) openly question the accuracy in this instance. Asserting that I could only be doing this because "I don't like liberals" is unjustifiable.

namelessfly wrote:As for Governor Palin's credibility, her predictions on Obamacare and the Obama economy have been prescient. You probably dismiss the Governor because you believe that the "I can see Russia from my house" is an accurate quote.

Assuming the alleged predictions were actually made beforehand, which may or may not be the case. I tend to be skeptical of predictions allegedly made by ANY politician - the job calls for them to make a lot of these anyhow, just on the off chance they can later be "proven" right about something.

(We Aussies tend to be cynical, especially about politicians - of any creed, colour or flag.)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day - and doesn't have to be prescient for this to happen.

My direct exposure to US pollies is relatively limited (thankfully), but Ms Palin has simply never impressed me at all. End of story. Obviously, you feel otherwise.

namelessfly wrote:It will be interesting to see what you spew to justify your opinion of her.

Likewise, I'm sure. How about we both try to keep away from personal shots?