posted July 03, 2013 06:36 PM            

quote:

---

Ron Paul sees the success of a movement, and campaigns to counter with his own movement. He provides a line of blame to substantiate his claim, but leaves out any notion of individual thinking amongst the players. He talks of them as if they're clones of one another not interested in their own ideas, but those of a few influential people. There are certainly a lot of followers in the world, but in any decent-sized group there are going to be differences of opinion.

---

Uh huh. So there's no point in talking about Neoconservatives as a group because they differ in opinions even if they are united with a common agenda. There's no point in looking at that agenda no matter how obvious it is that they are the authors and executioners of our current foreign policy.

Thanks for the lesson

What's on TV tonight, Obama spewing some BS about why we're meddling with Syria? You know, that country which has been in the Neocons' crosshairs for decades now? Have fun with your magnifying glass, picking over Obama's rhetoric for holes.

Nice talking with you as always.

posted July 03, 2013 06:37 PM            

quote:

---

This is a good talk about how Neocons did have a nefarious plan, and failed. They failed by limiting debate, and they failed in implementing their plans. Wolfowitz, a fellow Capricorn of ours, also admits to those failures.

---

ROTFLMAO!!!

posted July 03, 2013 08:10 PM            

quote:

---

I learned his followers don't have a good reputation at events.

---

posted July 08, 2013 02:13 PM            

quote:

---

Glad you learned something for once!

---

Intentionally being dense doesn't suit you. I learn things all the time.

quote:

---

Uh huh. So there's no point in talking about Neoconservatives as a group because they differ in opinions even if they are united with a common agenda. There's no point in looking at that agenda no matter how obvious it is that they are the authors and executioners of our current foreign policy.

Thanks for the lesson

---

Obviously you didn't get that lesson. The point, obviously, is that people are people, meaning they aren't unknowing drones of one another. Even YOU describe yourself as a free thinker while espousing other people's views. Should we treat you as a follower of a doctrine, or as the free thinker you believe yourself to be?

Would you say that you're generally pessimistic about people...even as you seek to save them? Is it impossible that NEOCONs could be ordinary people with ordinary rationales about things? I think that for you to fulfill your role as the intelligent resistor (or revolutionary as you might prefer), you believe that there must be an intelligent evil. Otherwise your cause might lack meaning. If they're just human, that might mean that you're just human, too, and you're epic battle may not be so epic.

Interesting article

quote:

---

ROTFLMAO!!!

---

I don't understand posting a response that means nothing to the person you are responding to. I know what the letters stand for, but I don't understand what would be rolling-on-the-floor laugh-worthy.

quote:

---

I learned his followers don't have a good reputation at events.

---

A lot of journalists don’t like Paul’s people because of the way they behaved on the campaign trail. When not shouting the praises of the Texas congressman, they were often shouting down their opponents. I was present in New Hampshire this January when the news came through that their guy had placed second with 23 percent of the vote in the first-in-the-nation primary. To say that the crowd at the Ron Paul party went wild would be an understatement. They went bestial—all teeth and claw, hollering at the cameras and pawing at the stage.

But his biggest problem was his fans. Doherty recalls a conversation with a “tipsy young Romney supporter” during the Iowa caucuses who admitted that she liked Paul but hated his followers. “They were outside agitators, she insisted, almost scary in their intensity.” Reading between the lines, Doherty has some sympathy with that view. I do, too. After all, isn’t conservatism about sustaining order, not tearing it down? http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/ron-pauls-paradoxes/

posted July 08, 2013 03:39 PM            

quote:

---

The point, obviously, is that people are people, meaning they aren't unknowing drones of one another.

---

Are you trying to actually tell me that there is no such thing as group-think, there are no organizations unified by a common ideology worth speaking of, no movements? You are seriously THAT much of a deconstructionist, that you want to take a wrecking ball to all organizations and their reigning ideas and break them down to individual opinions, held together by...what?... illusory similarities of opinion?

FAR OUT!

quote:

---

Even YOU describe yourself as a free thinker while espousing other people's views.

---

I don't think it's "espousing a view" to say that the Neocons developed our aggressive foreign policy, any more than it would be "espousing a view" to say Obama is President of the U.S. Facts are facts.

quote:

---

Should we treat you as a follower of a doctrine, or as the free thinker you believe yourself to be?

---

You'll do whatever you want regardless, I suppose.

But if you are inclined to think about it, consider that people often join clubs and define themselves by their clubs, and that suits them fine. So you have people saying, "I'm a Liberal," or "I'm a Daughter of the Revolution," or whatever. Now, even moreso, if someone is a board member of the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institute, Cato Institute or whatever I WILL take the liberty of assuming that they subscribe to that Institute's ideology, because these groups are all about ideology.

Are you seriously trying to build the case that I'm arguing from a position of weakness when I take that liberty?

I, on the other hand, do not align myself with ANY institution, and therefore prefer that people do not make generalizations about my ideology. If people don't like my non-adherence to any pre-packaged, institutional mindset, oh well. Nobody has to like me!

quote:

---

Would you say that you're generally pessimistic about people...even as you seek to save them?

---

Not pessimistic and not seeking to save them. Where the heck do you come up with this stuff? I feel like I'm talking to someone from outer space!

quote:

---

Is it impossible that NEOCONs could be ordinary people with ordinary rationales about things?

---

We should stop talking, your questions are just a waste of time. I just feel sucked into this pointless whirlpool of debate and don't know why I'm here.

quote:

---

If they're just human, that might mean that you're just human, too, and you're epic battle may not be so epic.

---

I have no epic battle, you don't understand me at all.

quote:

---

I don't understand posting a response that means nothing to the person you are responding to.

---

I thought you might be able to figure it out...but I guessed wrong.

You said "This is a good talk about how Neocons did have a nefarious plan, and failed. They failed by limiting debate, and they failed in implementing their plans. Wolfowitz, a fellow Capricorn of ours, also admits to those failures."

I laughed because, what world do you live in??I live in one where the US has adopted an aggressive foreign policy since 9-11, and many people trace that back to the Bush Doctrine, and Wolfowitz is credited with writing the Bush Doctrine, and he's still wielding a lot of power, but you think there's something wrong with me for paying any attention to him!

Like, TV hasn't spelled this out for you, therefore I must be attacked as some kind of renegade Thinker? It's just funny to me!

quote:

---

A lot of journalists don’t like Paul’s people because of the way they behaved on the campaign trail.

---

Yeah. But I didn't do that.

quote:

---

Of course, you could have posted a video of a Ron Paul rally or something that might have put me in my place as well. Obviously, not all Ron Paul supporters are going to be encapsulated in a broad description of the group.

---

posted July 08, 2013 04:08 PM            

Is it interesting to you merely because it's something that you think you can use to prove me wrong, or do you actually pretend to come to this topic well-read, and in all your sifting through the materials, this one best represents the conclusions you've drawn independently about the issue?

quote:

---

1 The neocons are chastened liberals who turned right.

---

I never heard this myth.

quote:

---

2 The neocons are Israeli lackeys.

Bunk. The neocon saga couldn't be more American.

---

It's interesting to note how many key members of PNAC are dual US-Israeli citizens, however.

quote:

---

3 The neocons had too much power and took over Bush's brain.

In fact, President Bush used the neocons for his own purposes and then dumped many of them overboard.

---

I think this article is pathetic. The author pretends to know Bush's motivations?

quote:

---

What's more, he never gave any of them Cabinet-level positions.

---

^ False. Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense and a member of PNAC.

quote:

---

4 The neocons are bloodthirsty ideologues, trying to impose a militant Wilsonianism on the United States that is alien to our foreign policy traditions.

Militant? Sure. But alien? Baloney. In fact, the neocons' worldview melds both of the major strands of traditional U.S. foreign policy thinking -- realism and idealism -- in a highly opportunistic fashion.

---

Traditional US foreign policy was never about pre-emptive war before the Neocons took over. All the author's high-falutin' language here doesn't change that fact.

quote:

---

5 The Iraq debacle has discredited the neocons.

This could be the biggest whopper of them all. Now that the "surge" in Iraq has brought levels of violence down somewhat, the neocons are already claiming vindication.

---

I never would have espoused this myth, I have no idea who the author thinks he is talking about.

quote:

---

The truth is that the neocons have been repeatedly declared dead before -- and, to the chagrin of their enemies on the left and the right, bounced back.

---

Well, I agree with that. Anyone who's aware of what's actually happening would draw the same conclusion.

posted July 12, 2013 02:07 PM            

quote:

---

Are you trying to actually tell me that there is no such thing as group-think, there are no organizations unified by a common ideology worth speaking of, no movements? You are seriously THAT much of a deconstructionist, that you want to take a wrecking ball to all organizations and their reigning ideas and break them down to individual opinions, held together by...what?... illusory similarities of opinion?

---

I certainly wouldn't deem myself a "deconstructionist," no.

How many false pictures of people could we put together using their association with certain groups? Have you never had an association that didn't describe you as mostly similar to the other people in that association? Ron Paul is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He has been a member of the Republican party. Does the Republican Party adequately give you a sense of who he is? Do you think he's stuck in group-think with the rest of the members of the Republican Party? No.

quote:

---

Now, even moreso, if someone is a board member of the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institute, Cato Institute or whatever I WILL take the liberty of assuming that they subscribe to that Institute's ideology, because these groups are all about ideology.

---

An American political party could be said to be "all about ideology," and yet we do see rather wide divergences amongst the people that generally support whatever that ideology is, right?

It is a fair point to say that a board member of one of these places is generally in alignment with the group they're in, but that would be the point of their membership. Whatever life experiences, education, and contacts they've had has informed their adherence to the principles of the organization.

American Enterprise Institute is an interesting example. In my skimming I notice David Frum was ousted from the organization for being critical of Republicans. This is the guy who coined the term, "Axis of evil." He has an interesting resume, which lead him to AEI, but didn't keep him there despite his neocon credentials. He, like Ron Paul, does not follow the ideology strictly.

Brookings doesn't have a unified ideology, so I don't know why a person that is supposedly so well read in these areas is lumping them into this conversation.

Cato is a libertarian group. Are they also part of the Neocon conspiracy?

quote:

---

Are you seriously trying to build the case that I'm arguing from a position of weakness when I take that liberty?

---

Do you think I'm failing?

quote:

---

If people don't like my non-adherence to any pre-packaged, institutional mindset, oh well. Nobody has to like me!

---

If you lacked any pre-packaged, institutional mindset why would it be so easy for you to find articles that speak your language? Your ideas come from somewhere. You didn't come up with this stuff independently. You follow people that have the same fears that you have, the same way Neocons do.

quote:

---

Not pessimistic and not seeking to save them. Where the heck do you come up with this stuff? I feel like I'm talking to someone from outer space!

---

Not many would venture that I'm from outer space, especially when I'm bringing people back down to Earth. Where do I come up with this stuff? You seriously can't see? You're cynical about A LOT, right? That's something anyone reading here would be able to assess. The source of your cynicism is the belief that people are power-hungry and generally bent toward tyranny...unless you've deemed them to be innocents, in which case I guess they haven't got the position to be power-hungry or tyrannical. You are pessimistic towards people with perceived power, and you are trying to save those without power. I think both parties are one.

quote:

---

We should stop talking, your questions are just a waste of time. I just feel sucked into this pointless whirlpool of debate and don't know why I'm here.

---

I get that.

quote:

---

I have no epic battle, you don't understand me at all.

---

You do have an epic battle. You think there's a concerted conspiracy. You've admitted as much (or are we now saying it's not a conspiracy, but something actual?).
How can you say that I don't understand you at all after all this talking? Do you not reveal yourself in what you say? Has everything you've posted been completely non-typical for the real you? Am I writing to a character detached from the real Faith? Do you think you know nothing about me? Do you think you know nothing about Juni, or Randall, or Ami, or jellyfish, or whoever has posted a lot here? It's virtually impossible not to have a sense of a person when they've posted so much.

quote:

---

I laughed because, what world do you live in??I live in one where the US has adopted an aggressive foreign policy since 9-11, and many people trace that back to the Bush Doctrine, and Wolfowitz is credited with writing the Bush Doctrine, and he's still wielding a lot of power, but you think there's something wrong with me for paying any attention to him!

---

You see the issue as black and white. I see nuance. I wouldn't characterize Obama's foreign policy as "exactly" like Bush's. Nor do I think that either President would form an opinion or a strategy completely devoid of expert consultation (which I admit may currently back the Neocon outlook).

Is the U.S. aggressive because it adheres to Wolfowitz, or because a perceived threat remains in play? It's like saying the teachers are failing the students...even as the funding is failing the teachers. There's at least two sides, and addressing only one side may not paint a full picture.

quote:

---

Like, TV hasn't spelled this out for you, therefore I must be attacked as some kind of renegade Thinker? It's just funny to me!

---

I like TV, but it's not really in the picture with regard to this conversation. I doubt that TV has spelled this out for you, either.

"Renegade thinker" seems like something you'd take as a badge of honor. I can see "attack" as a way of putting my side of this conversation, but I'd couple it with questioning, because that's what's at the core of it. I want to know whether you're thinking straight or not, so I can be on the right side of the truth.
You prefer scoffing at the notion that you could be wrong to laying out a comprehensive, provable outline of your beliefs. Maybe that is the better route. It sounds as if there's a lot of information you'd have to draw-together into such a sweeping assessment of the state of the world and politics. The way the guy drew together the information in that article that "spoke your language" wasn't quite sufficient for my standards. It was at best a plausible case, and at worst a sweeping generalization that didn't sufficiently connect the dots.

quote:

---

Is it interesting to you merely because it's something that you think you can use to prove me wrong, or do you actually pretend to come to this topic well-read, and in all your sifting through the materials, this one best represents the conclusions you've drawn independently about the issue?

---

It's interesting for what it says. I know that these are not things you've said, so I thought it would be of interest to you to read such an article. Are you not curious for curiosity's sake?

I like the attempt at using the article to punctuate your point about me not being well read, or saying that I merely skim material, but it's a vain attempt in that you don't perform very strongly in debate with me. A guy who's not well read in your supposed area of expertise should not be able to hold his own if he knows nothing. If I'm making an enormous fool of myself for questioning you, it certainly doesn't seem like it. Is my self-awareness dwindling?

quote:

---

I never heard this myth.

---

I believe he substantiated the reason for the claim in the article.

quote:

---

It's interesting to note how many key members of PNAC are dual US-Israeli citizens, however.

---

True.

quote:

---

I think this article is pathetic. The author pretends to know Bush's motivations?

---

You claim to know the motivations of entire groups of people (group-think and all that), yet you question a writer's knowledge of Bush's motivations?

quote:

---

^ False. Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense and a member of PNAC.

---

That's a fair point, but the writer justifies his point later saying, "Neither Vice President Cheney nor former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- the men who made the real decisions with Bush in the Oval Office -- has ever been a neocon. They are Republican unilateralists who believe in deploying U.S. power whenever and wherever the executive branch sees fit, regardless of what U.S. allies want. Cheney and Rumsfeld used Wolfowitz and other neocons to provide an intellectual patina of justification for war against Iraq, much as Cheney has been trying to do with Iran today."

quote:

---

Traditional US foreign policy was never about pre-emptive war before the Neocons took over. All the author's high-falutin' language here doesn't change that fact.

---

I agree with you, but I also agree with him, and with regard to preemptive wars, we might not be having this conversation if WMD had actually existed in Iraq, particularly if they'd have been deployed immediately. There is a danger of radicals getting massively destructive weapons and using them, which will probably ensure that preemptive war continues to be an option.

quote:

---

I never would have espoused this myth, I have no idea who the author thinks he is talking about.

---

posted July 12, 2013 02:12 PM            

I totally disagree with you on many things, including much of what you wrote here ("Cheney and Rumseld weren't neocons"... are you and the author totally flipped??) There is no point in repeating myself, it's a waste of time.

Just two things, I never said Obama's foreign policy is exactly like Bush's. He is worse than Bush. Second, you can know the motivations of a group when they PUBLISH their manifestos, but Bush didn't PUBLISH a manifesto about his relationship with Rumsfeld!

I'll let you have the last word, hope that makes you happy. Seriously I know you have better things to do than argue with me.

Happy weekend

posted July 12, 2013 03:41 PM            

quote:

---

If you lacked any pre-packaged, institutional mindset why would it be so easy for you to find articles that speak your language?

---

Why do you assume it's EASY?

quote:

---

You're cynical about A LOT, right?

---

I'm not cynical, just informed, and the information tells me that things are headed in a direction I don't like. You're trying to discredit my information on the basis of some kind of attitude problem I have; it's annoying.

quote:

---

You do have an epic battle. You think there's a concerted conspiracy.

---

I think, therefore I battle? Not necessarily. And frankly apart from GU2, I say little on this topic, because the people I know either already heard my opinion and tuned me out (they won't do any research) or understand neoconservatism already.

quote:

---

How can you say that I don't understand you at all after all this talking?

---

Because you make a lot of assumptions, miss a lot of what I'm trying to communicate, and generally just try and knock me down every time I open my mouth. You see me through this warped lens.

quote:

---

Do you think you know nothing about me?

---

I don't know much except that you like arguing.

quote:

---

You prefer scoffing at the notion that you could be wrong to laying out a comprehensive, provable outline of your beliefs. Maybe that is the better route. It sounds as if there's a lot of information you'd have to draw-together into such a sweeping assessment of the state of the world and politics.

---

Remember the very first thread I posted here, about PNAC? It was an attempt to lay out a provable, comprehensive outline of my beliefs.

quote:

---

I like the attempt at using the article to punctuate your point about me not being well read,

---

I know you are not well read about PNAC and neoconservatism. You probably are well-read about other things.

quote:

---

If I'm making an enormous fool of myself for questioning you, it certainly doesn't seem like it. Is my self-awareness dwindling?

---

I never said you were making a fool of yourself but honestly I have no idea what your objective has been here.

quote:

---

I agree with you, but I also agree with him, and with regard to preemptive wars, we might not be having this conversation if WMD had actually existed in Iraq, particularly if they'd have been deployed immediately. There is a danger of radicals getting massively destructive weapons and using them, which will probably ensure that preemptive war continues to be an option.

---

posted July 12, 2013 04:44 PM            

quote:

---

Why do you assume it's EASY?

---

Why would I assume it would be otherwise?

quote:

---

I'm not cynical, just informed, and the information tells me that things are headed in a direction I don't like. You're trying to discredit my information on the basis of some kind of attitude problem I have; it's annoying.

---

So you're telling me that the attitude isn't there, and you're not so much cynical, you just know everything you need to know in order to make an informed statement? Why is it so desperately difficult to prove your knowledge?

quote:

---

I think, therefore I battle? Not necessarily. And frankly apart from GU2, I say little on this topic, because the people I know either already heard my opinion and tuned me out (they won't do any research) or understand neoconservatism already

---

Not necessarily YOU battle, but you do apparently see a battle taking place where others may not. Further, there are other people on your side of this altercation.

You know who generally gets into research? Me. I neither tuned you out, nor avoided research. Maybe I should.

quote:

---

Because you make a lot of assumptions, miss a lot of what I'm trying to communicate, and generally just try and knock me down every time I open my mouth. You see me through this warped lens.

---

I misunderstand. Sometimes I hope really hard that I'm misunderstanding, but then I never get the kind of rebuttal that suggests I'm misunderstanding. I need to be more empathetic, and apparently you don't need to work on your communication skills, huh?

quote:

---

I don't know much except that you like arguing.

---

That's a lot less than I'd expect from a "thinker," especially one that enjoys invoking Scorpio or Pluto.

quote:

---

Remember the very first thread I posted here, about PNAC? It was an attempt to lay out a provable, comprehensive outline of my beliefs.

---

I do. I thought it ran into some problems. Maybe I was wrong.

quote:

---

I know you are not well read about PNAC and neoconservatism. You probably are well-read about other things.

---

You're right about me not reading a whole lot about either subject. Thank goodness I have an expert here with flawless insight, right?

quote:

---

I never said you were making a fool of yourself but honestly I have no idea what your objective has been here.

---

No, you didn't, but you often speak of me as if I'm unaware, and if I am I would hope that someone would help me.
I'm now 40. I used to be sharper than I am now. I know things will only get worse from here, and I'm so glad that politics is not my career as sooner or later I'm sure I'd make some egregious mistakes. I try to maintain a certain amount of self-awareness. I test myself against my environment to see how I'm treated. Am I smart or am I a fool? Saturn in Gemini: the insecure mind.
My objective? I guess I want to see your reaction.

quote:

---

So you are a hawk now?

---

posted July 13, 2013 07:13 AM            

quote:

---

Why would I assume it would be otherwise?

---

Why do you assume anything?

quote:

---

Why is it so desperately difficult to prove your knowledge?

---

I've proven it, you're just in denial.

quote:

---

Me. I neither tuned you out, nor avoided research. Maybe I should.

---

K.

quote:

---

I need to be more empathetic, and apparently you don't need to work on your communication skills, huh?

---

Empathic. I do need to work on my communication skills, but I feel that regardless of how I present myself, we are doomed to miss each other's point. How many conversations have we had that all end up in this dizzying cycle of repetition and jabbering?

quote:

---

That's a lot less than I'd expect from a "thinker," especially one that enjoys invoking Scorpio or Pluto.

---

As if you never mention being a Capricorn! ROFTL You're as guilty of that as anyone.

Edit: Wait a second did you actual want to know how much I know about you, what with my 3H Pluto? I know:

- You are artistic
- You love your wife very much
- You are extremely determined in arguments and have more stamina and meticulousness than most people
- You are occasionally brilliant but sometimes lose your way, straying off point instead of concentrating your formidable focus where it would serve you best.
- Like many Caps, like me, you have sensitivity, warmth, and coldness all tangled in a knot.

And some other stuff. But it's still not much. Usually I feel like I understand someone after I have had many long, deep, friendly or revelatory conversations with them. It would be presumptuous of me to assume I understand someone just on the basis of my raw perceptions, without their explicit input. I want people to collaborate with me in constructing my impression of them.

quote:

---

You're right about me not reading a whole lot about either subject. Thank goodness I have an expert here with flawless insight, right?

---

Actually I don't understand why you've fought me so much on these topics when you haven't read about them yourself. It seems that your disbelief comes from within yourself and how you feel the world "ought" to be, not from a rational, deep analysis of the facts at hand, yet you pride yourself on *winning* against me all the time.

quote:

---

Saturn in Gemini: the insecure mind.

---

Now I feel bad.

quote:

---

My objective? I guess I want to see your reaction.

---

You came, you saw, you conquered.

posted July 13, 2013 04:56 PM            

quote:

---

Actually I don't understand why you've fought me so much on these topics when you haven't read about them yourself. It seems that your disbelief comes from within yourself and how you feel the world "ought" to be, not from a rational, deep analysis of the facts at hand, yet you pride yourself on *winning* against me all the time.

---

What's in me is fairness. I have three planets in the 7th, and two in Libra, which is a pretty powerful Libra statement. Additionally, those three planets in the 7th are in Sagittarius, which is another sign that can be rather consumed by justice (and fairness towards the other side or the underdog).

I question your beliefs, because those people you might oppose also have their beliefs rooted in something. I deduce that you're not interested in what may be a valid points on the other side. It would be interesting to watch you tackle a national security or foreign policy issue with Neocon-seeming people, and I question how you'd be viewed when going up against another human concerned with freedom and justice who has completely different views than you do. It seems like you'd like to think of such people as illegitimate in some way, and yet I would wager that they'd do well in showing the exact same kind of humanity that you show. When you challenge a political ideologue about moral issues, generally the tone changes pretty dramatically. A lot of people will start reminding the challenger of their moral human credentials, and they'll frame their argument for what might seem immoral in more moralistic terms (if they're intelligent and sincere, which one would have to be in such a situation). Some of those you'd deem to be Neocons probably wouldn't even accept the label. It's certainly unlikely that you'd find someone that is for the killing of innocents in the upper echelons of our military machines, and yet these are the same people that craft the strategies that are in use.

Even when I think of myself in the role of President; I'm not for killing; I'm not for war. I would have to consult the most informed, pragmatic people at my disposal for perspectives on the national security issues of the day. I don't think that doing so would make me a Neocon, even if the choices I ended up making seem to align with the Neocon agenda.

quote:

---

Now I feel bad.

---

You need not. It's a cool placement, and mostly good. It continuously questions and makes things right. It's in the 1st house, so it describes a lot about me. It's also retrograde, so it's effects are internalized. But Saturn is opposite Mercury, which means my mind is disciplined, and both sides have a positive aspect to Uranus in Libra (Saturn trine Uranus, and Mercury sextile Uranus), so the opposition finds ease through original thinking. I have a 140 IQ. (My wife scored a point higher in the same test) Stephen Hawking also has a Capricorn Sun with a Virgo Moon.

I'm reading astro.com's thing about my Saturn in the first:

"The depth with which you look at yourself is characteristic of the way you relate to others." (Of course this is tempered by other interps that suggest a Saturn in the first person considers themselves unworthy of intimate attention, and likes to keep things superficial.)

"Your intellect is constant and usually unfettered by momentary feelings and whims. Logic plays an important role in your thinking processes. Grandiose schemes and theories have little interest for you."

posted July 15, 2013 09:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
What's in me is fairness. I have three planets in the 7th, and two in Libra, which is a pretty powerful Libra statement.

---

Is it fair for you to try and prove me wrong without even studying what I'm trying to prove?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I question your beliefs, because those people you might oppose also have their beliefs rooted in something. I deduce that you're not interested in what may be a valid points on the other side.

---

I don't think a psychopathic, genocidal mindset is anything I could ever find value in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
It would be interesting to watch you tackle a national security or foreign policy issue with Neocon-seeming people

---

Are you talking about your average, uninformed neocon whose brain is hooked up to Fox News, or an informed neocon? Either way, I don't see what's so interesting about a debate. To me, what's interesting is reading articles and weighing them against each other, so the debate transpires in my mind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I question how you'd be viewed when going up against another human concerned with freedom and justice who has completely different views than you do.

---

Don't you care how they'd be viewed?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
It seems like you'd like to think of such people as illegitimate in some way, and yet I would wager that they'd do well in showing the exact same kind of humanity that you show.

---

"such people" This is too vague for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
When you challenge a political ideologue about moral issues, generally the tone changes pretty dramatically. A lot of people will start reminding the challenger of their moral human credentials, and they'll frame their argument for what might seem immoral in more moralistic terms (if they're intelligent and sincere, which one would have to be in such a situation).

---

Granted, everyone has different ideas of morality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
It's certainly unlikely that you'd find someone that is for the killing of innocents in the upper echelons of our military machines, and yet these are the same people that craft the strategies that are in use.

---

Well that's a quaint theory but at the end of the day, I would love to see people become better informed so they don't end up in a career in which they are killing innocents accidentally or against their will or conscience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Even when I think of myself in the role of President; I'm not for killing; I'm not for war. I would have to consult the most informed, pragmatic people at my disposal for perspectives on the national security issues of the day.

---

How do you select the most informed people unless you are incredibly well informed yourself? And to become informed you need to be willing to see things for what they are, which, I just want to point out for the umpteenth time...is a far cry from the illusions crafted and sustained in the media.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
You need not. It's a cool placement, and mostly good.

---

That's good news, my daughter has Saturn in Gemini as well. Is your Saturn conjunct my 16 Gemini Mars? If so that explains part of our dynamic here. You want me to argue Saturn style (slow, methodical) and I get frustrated and impatient that you seem to want to tamp down and deaden my Mars' reflexes.

Of course, as a Cap, I can do slow and methodical, easy peasy, but in Cap fashion I like to conserve my energy and will only dedicate time to a larger project if I feel it will pan out well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
(Of course this is tempered by other interps that suggest a Saturn in the first person considers themselves unworthy of intimate attention, and likes to keep things superficial.)

---

I wouldn't say you come across as superficial, just distant.

posted July 15, 2013 06:22 PM            

quote:

---

Is it fair for you to try and prove me wrong without even studying what I'm trying to prove?

---

Is it fair to say that no amount of study would satisfy you that I'm sufficiently informed?

quote:

---

I don't think a psychopathic, genocidal mindset is anything I could ever find value in.

---

It may not be those things.

quote:

---

Are you talking about your average, uninformed neocon whose brain is hooked up to Fox News, or an informed neocon? Either way, I don't see what's so interesting about a debate.

---

No, I would prefer to see you debate educated, knowledgeable neocons.

quote:

---

Don't you care how they'd be viewed?

---

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Which party would come out seeming more reasonable and more informed, you or the educated and experienced Neocon?

quote:

---

"such people" This is too vague for me.

---

Well, this is an imaginary exercise, so it doesn't really matter which one. If you need to pick one, pick one. Do you think you'd come across as more reasonable and moral than Wolfowitz if you were in the same room debating the same policy choices?

quote:

---

Granted, everyone has different ideas of morality.

---

Sort of, but there's generally a thread of the same idea amongst intelligent people. You don't like genocide or psychopaths, and chances are neither would the person sitting opposite you.

quote:

---

Well that's a quaint theory but at the end of the day, I would love to see people become better informed so they don't end up in a career in which they are killing innocents accidentally or against their will or conscience.

---

It's not a quaint theory.

quote:

---

How do you select the most informed people unless you are incredibly well informed yourself? And to become informed you need to be willing to see things for what they are, which, I just want to point out for the umpteenth time...is a far cry from the illusions crafted and sustained in the media.

---

You're assuming that the illusion is with others.

quote:

---

That's good news, my daughter has Saturn in Gemini as well. Is your Saturn conjunct my 16 Gemini Mars? If so that explains part of our dynamic here. You want me to argue Saturn style (slow, methodical) and I get frustrated and impatient that you seem to want to tamp down and deaden my Mars' reflexes.

---

posted July 15, 2013 08:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Is it fair to say that no amount of study would satisfy you that I'm sufficiently informed?

---

AG, just a few posts ago you were trying to tell me that Rumsfeld is not a neocon! And you said, "You're right about me not reading a whole lot about either subject." And you prove it by speaking abstractly about the neocon agenda as if they didn't publicize it...as if we have to debate it or guess about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
It may not be those things.

---

If you had read about it, you would know that it is exactly those things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
No, I would prefer to see you debate educated, knowledgeable neocons.

---

I doubt you would even be able to tell when they were lying. But outside of that, what if, in this debate, I were to cite this reference:

quote:

---

The Sydney Morning Herald published an English translation of an article published in German in Der Spiegel summarizing former President Jimmy Carter's position and stating that President Carter:

judges the PNAC agenda in the same way. At first, argues Carter, Bush responded to the challenge of September 11 in an effective and intelligent way, "but in the meantime a group of conservatives worked to get approval for their long held ambitions under the mantle of 'the war on terror'." The restrictions on civil rights in the US and at Guantanamo, cancellation of international accords, "contempt for the rest of the world", and finally an attack on Iraq "although there is no threat to the US from Baghdad" - all these things will have devastating consequences, according to Carter. "This entire unilateralism", warns the ex-President, "will increasingly isolate the US from those nations that we need in order to do battle with terrorism".[32]

---

That'd make a strong point in your mind, right? It's not little old Faith with the rhetoric, it's an ex-President, too! But it goes so far beyond that, you see.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Which party would come out seeming more reasonable and more informed, you or the educated and experienced Neocon?

---

I have no idea, since there is no uniformity to be found amongst the neocons. (For example, Dick Cheney is a lot more convincing in debate than William Kristol.) Besides, obviously I cannot match the level of awareness of someone who has access to top secret documents, all I could argue would be the moral point that to plan to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars" even before 9-11 is, to put it lightly, horrific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#US_world_dominance

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Do you think you'd come across as more reasonable and moral than Wolfowitz if you were in the same room debating the same policy choices?

---

Reasonable and moral are two different things. I might cry if I had to stand up and face that monster. If so I would not seem too reasonable. And morality is always personal and relative.

But again, why not just be your own judge? From your vast reading on PNAC you must have formed an opinion by now on how reasonable and moral Mr. Wolfowitz is...why not tell me now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
You don't like genocide or psychopaths, and chances are neither would the person sitting opposite you.

---

The difference is, I wouldn't do it, but the neocons are doing it. A lot of it has to do with short-term gains like enriching the military industrial complex and making the neocons rich. It's blood money. But that is beyond the scope of our already too-convoluted discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
You're assuming that the illusion is with others.

---

The media creates illusions, of course. Propaganda is everywhere.

Regarding your chart:

I think that Mars-Saturn conjunction is really evident in our conversations.

And holy cow your Jupiter-NN is right on my 15 Cap sun. Doesn't that mean I can teach you a thing or two about how to evolve into second decan Cap? Yes...yes....I think it does!

posted July 18, 2013 04:23 PM            

quote:

---

AG, just a few posts ago you were trying to tell me that Rumsfeld is not a neocon!

---

An article I posted said that.

quote:

---

And you speak abstractly about the neocon agenda as if they didn't publicize it...as if we have to debate it or guess about it.

---

I merely think that just because a strategy was once held does not mean it will always hold. I think that people move on, and get their views shaped by new developments along the way. I don't think things are static.

quote:

---

If you had read about it, you would know that it is exactly those things.

---

I would be happy to read whatever it is that you think suggests that it is exactly those things. I have read some already, which some people took as promoting genocide, but reading the source material I know New American Century wasn't advocating for genocide at all, but merely pointing out that regimes would seek to use such biological/genocidal war material in the same way countries use nuclear bombs today [as a deterrent towards hostile entities] making it a "politically useful tool." People trying to make PNAC out as pro-genocide took the phrase "politically useful tool" to mean that PNAC endorsed the use of the imaginary technology when they were merely stating that other governments might make use of it.

quote:

---

I doubt you would even be able to tell when they were lying.

---

Unless a person is a pathological liar, I don't think you'd find them lying when giving their opinion of foreign policy.

quote:

---

But outside of that, what if, in this debate, I were to cite this reference:

---

Then you'd cite that reference. Carter has his beliefs for a reason, so did PNAC. I'm sure Carter could go further into why he holds those beliefs, and I'm sure PNAC could also go further into why they held their beliefs.

quote:

---

I have no idea, since there is no uniformity to be found amongst the neocons. (For example, Dick Cheney is a lot more convincing in debate than William Kristol, who stutters and acts like he's on drugs.)

---

I find that an interesting take. Dick Cheney is the one you could probably most count on to espouse the old PNAC views, and you think he'd do well. I'd suspect many of the other members to have evolved in their views by now.

quote:

---

Besides, obviously I cannot match the level of awareness of someone who access to top secret documents, all I could argue would be the moral point that to plan to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars" even before 9-11 is, to put it lightly, horrific.

---

I'm glad to see that you're aware that you may not have all the knowledge necessary to make a PNAC person think the way they did. It's interesting that you suggest that the capacity to fight and win multiple wars is horrific. Couldn't the alternative also be horrific? If the person you were debating asked, "What about if we were fighting the Vietman War, and the war in Iraq at the same time?" We all know how terribly inefficient our forces were in each scenario, and how costly in lives and money. I would venture that they don't believe we can afford to be inefficient in these conflicts.

quote:

---

Reasonable and moral are two different things.

---

Not necessarily.

quote:

---

From your vast reading on PNAC you must have formed an opinion by now on how reasonable and moral Mr. Wolfowitz is...why not tell me now?

---

He's a mixed bag like almost anyone else.

quote:

---

A lot of it has to do with short-term gains like to enrich the military industrial complex and make the neocons rich. It's blood money.

---

That's an interesting point. So if a non-neocon person had legitimate fears about an impending war, and took the opportunity to invest in defense contractors, then that person might be a psychopath rather than a person reading the writing on the wall? It's kind of like Randall's assumption that all of the scientists that back the idea of manmade global warming are really just backing the hypothesis for the money. There's no better or more plausible reason, nor any reason besides just the money at play. Your case is strengthened in that it can be said that Neocons orchestrated the Iraq war. That is true, and then they probably made money on it as well. I agree with you that there's nothing that looks moral about that.

The only thing I question is whether a Neocon could make a legitimate argument for why they sought regime change in Iraq, and I think that they could. Actually, I take back the word "legitimate," and replace it with "reasonable." I didn't think the rationale for going to Iraq was legitimate myself, but I do believe that the people pursuing that action thought it was the most reasonable use of our power. They really seemed to want to stabilize the area, and they thought that the more influence the U.S. could put on and in the area, the better positioned we'd be to affect positive change. I think Wolfowitz is still saying that we don't know what the future holds for the area. It seems like he's still holding out hope that things do come around.

It's difficult to speculate on how things would be in the Middle East now if nothing had been done. Would the terrorist network have grown exponentially as the Neocons were anticipating, or would there have been more targeted skirmishes in dealing with terrorist in the area? Would Saddam continued to be an unsolvable problem, or would there have been a breakdown? It's tough to know.

quote:

---

The media creates illusions, of course. Propaganda is everywhere.

---

Information is also everywhere. Over-simplying by making the media out to be propagandists doesn't really work for me. It's like Jwhop trying to discredit this source or that without being able to prove them wrong.

quote:

---

And holy cow your Jupiter-NN is right on my 15 Cap sun. Doesn't that mean I can teach you a thing or two about how to evolve into second decan Cap? Yes...yes....I think it does!

---

No, not a "second decan" Cap (the decan, in my opinion, is not uber-relevent to the interpretation of the NN). My NN suggests that I've spent many a lifetime taking care of people in the home, and that this lifetime I'm supposed to get out, and make a more Capricornian (business-like, industrious) use of myself. (Luckily, I was born a Cap, so I've got that going for me. ) In synastry, yes, you are supposed to offer growth, but I don't really see that taking place (as you seem to embody more of my SN in Cancer placement [based on cursory knowledge of your situation]).

The point of our interactions thus far has been me trying to pry your mind open to new possibilities. I honestly don't see the amount of practicality in your nature that I'd like to see. There's a certain carelessness in the way you assess information. Even as you berate me for skimming, you post stuff like that article that spoke your language, which shouldn't have gotten past your own internal censors (on several levels; not only were the connections suspicious, but the reasoning at the end was preposterous). In just your last post you said that, "Reasonable and moral are two different things." Perhaps, you're being economical, but a person trying to be convincing might put a little more effort than resorting to simplistic statements that can be undone in a few words.

quote:

---

And Scorpio Mars, sheesh no wonder.

---

Yeah, that's a real b*stard of a placement.

posted July 18, 2013 07:36 PM            

quote:

---

In synastry, yes, you are supposed to offer growth, but I don't really see that taking place (as you seem to embody more of my SN in Cancer placement [based on cursory knowledge of your situation]).

---

What "situation"? Oh are you talking about me being a....

*looking both ways to make sure no one else is reading, and lowering my voice*

a housewife?

posted July 18, 2013 07:56 PM            

My bottom line is that the Necons and PNAC originated our foreign policy and continue to play a huge role through various think tanks, government roles (like our old friend Elena Kagan in the Supreme Court,) media connections, industrial positions, and more. But I am unwilling to spell that out for you any more than I already have. Especially when I believe that I would only be responding to your condescending attitude; the intellectual substance here isn't especially challenging or interesting.

Just to give you an example: to say Wolfowitz has his good and bad side is as bland a point as you could possibly make; Hilter loved dogs and was a vegetarian, but that doesn't counteract and render meaningless his treachery.

If you hold no moral absolutes, and thereby cannot see the evil in creating FALSE reasons for going to war, the scope and proportions of which constitute genocide, then of course we cannot have a conversation. I cannot REASON with someone who is flippant about war.

Finally: I'm not impressed by your debate skills, because no matter how diligent you are in replying to each fact, your replies aren't especially cogent. And you aren't impressed with my debate skills, so we end up equal.

Your Libra/7H planets ought to be happy now.

posted July 19, 2013 03:43 PM            

quote:

---

Just to give you an example: to say Wolfowitz has his good and bad side is as bland a point as you could possibly make; Hilter loved dogs and was a vegetarian, but that doesn't counteract and render meaningless his treachery.

---

Minimalist, yeah. There's a lot to go through in the history of Wolfowitz, and rather than try to address everything a more "bland" point is in order. He's human. Unlike Hitler, it doesn't appear that he has to kill himself for ******* off the world. Remarkably, he hasn't even gotten himself in trouble with the law, so it's a bit of a leap to lump him in with Hitler. Once again, I think Cheney's your man if you want someone displaying the kind of paranoid, prejudiced, nationalistic, and power-hungry personality of a Hitler-type. Thank goodness Bush was finally alerted to his shadiness.

quote:

---

If you hold no moral absolutes, and thereby cannot see the evil in creating FALSE reasons for going to war, the scope and proportions of which constitute genocide, then of course we cannot have a conversation. I cannot REASON with someone who is flippant about war.

---

I personally hammered Jwhop on the false reasons given for going to war. You're constructing a narrative which is untrue in order to avoid dealing with nuance. I thought the war was unnecessary from the get go. I thought the pursuit of stabilization was flawed in it's execution. I thought that there needed to be an engagement with the Iraqi people in order to get the insurgency under control, which eventually the Bush administration did pursue.

Having read this person's cut case for genocide," I still disagree with that assessment. Oil for Food (OFF) was intended to provide humanitarian relief to Iraq. It was compromised by Hussein, and it was compromised by the inability to provide some of the means of humanitarian relief. For instance, water treatment equipment was off the table as something that could go towards the humanitarian effort as it could possibly be used in the creation of weapons. In the end, this program was seen as genocidal by the author of this article, but the program obviously wasn't created with the intent of genocide.

Then we move on the Iraq War, which in part was justified and backed by certain nations in part due to the failure of Oil for Food to adequately address the humanitarian situation there. There was pressure to abandon the sanctions for fear that the project was too corrupt and inefficient.* Obviously, to do so would mean that Hussein would once again go unchecked, and any humanitarian gains might be offset by Hussein's apparent military appetite.

* Much of what the U.S. Government could and could not achieve with regard to monitoring the program and implementation of the sanctions was directly related to the political situation surrounding the contentious issue of Iraq in the Security Council and in the 661 Committee. U.S. efforts to keep the comprehensive sanctions regime in place repeatedly were challenged by Council members who complained about the humanitarian impact of sanctions on the Iraqi people, and whose national firms would derive economic benefit from the lifting of sanctions. Indeed, starting in the mid-'90s and continuing into 2001, these pressures to lift sanctions grew. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg95026/html/CHRG-108shrg95026.htm

In the end, there are simplified versions of why we went to war, and there are more complicated versions of why we went to war. Certainly, the simple way the initiation of the war was pursued was ridiculously stupid, but there were other factors in play, which may have even informed the Neocons.

quote:

---

Finally: I'm not impressed by your debate skills, because no matter how diligent you are in replying to each fact, your replies aren't especially cogent.

---

posted July 20, 2013 10:05 AM            

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

To say that Cheney is worse than Wolfowitz is a moot point- all it tells me is that you would like to downplay Wolfowitz's culpability. Why do you do that? You are just ignorant about Wolfowitz and hoping to make me look silly for focusing on him in the first place?

quote:

---

Thank goodness Bush was finally alerted to his shadiness.

---

You see how you lose credibility by referring to events that never happened?

quote:

---

I personally hammered Jwhop on the false reasons given for going to war.

---

So you believed, or still believe, that we invaded Iraq for false reasons?

quote:

---

I thought the war was unnecessary from the get go. I thought the pursuit of stabilization was flawed in it's execution. I thought that there needed to be an engagement with the Iraqi people in order to get the insurgency under control,

---

If it was "unnecessary," as you said, then the pursuit of stabilization would have been flawed no matter what the execution. There should have been NO execution. And why get the insurgency under control? Why do anything? We were there for "false reasons" as you said.

See, your logic is wonky.

quote:

---

Obviously, to do so would mean that Hussein would once again go unchecked, and any humanitarian gains might be offset by Hussein's apparent military appetite.

---

If it was merely our intention to save the Iraqi people from Hussein and protect them from harm, we sure had a funny way of showing it.

quote:

---

Certainly, the simple way the initiation of the war was pursued was ridiculously stupid, but there were other factors in play, which may have even informed the Neocons.

---

Which factors, AG? You must have a list handy in your head or you wouldn't merely babble like this.

So you think the iniation of the war was stupid. How about the rest of it, though? See, as someone who is anti-war, I wouldn't make an ambiguous comment like that. There is no "nuance" here on your part, there is just an apparent moral ambivalence, and what strikes me as a blind spot in you that prevents you from recognizing yourself.

quote:

---

Finally, there's little payoff here. You debate poorly, because often you think sarcasm, insult, or the reference of some vast amount of knowledge is sufficient (despite an unwillingness to allow that knowledge to speak on your behalf).

---

You have been cutting me down and insulting me from day one, I've just been throwing the knife back at you. Of course the "reference of some vast amount of knowledge is sufficient." Of course! What other option do I have? Shall I violate copyright law and transcribe my books to you over the internet? No. What I've tried to do is rouse your curiosity from its apparently long, long hibernation, to get you to look at some facts about politics that are very true and important but not part of the shallow, lie-riddled national dialogue orchestrated by a controlled media.

quote:

---

(I am very easy to reason with by the way. Plug my info into astro.com, and check out what it gives you of my Psychological Horoscope).

---

Why would I do that? My own experience will of course trump whatever astro.com says. You are erratically, occasionally open to learning something new, but dealing with you generally feels like trying to pry open some locked doors with all my might just to force a sliver of information through the narrow crack.

But I'm sure you are a decent fellow in many other respects.

quote:

---

The only thing I want from you is a more open mind. That's my sole goal.

---

My mind is wide open. WIDE. OPEN.

But what have you taught me, really? The biggest lesson I've learned here is that AG is skeptical/fearful of non-mainstream information to the extent that he repeatedly constructs elaborate excuses to bat it away, just to save himself from the hazard of actually having to dirty his hands with examining the noxious, stigmatized-as-conspiratorial information close up.

quote:

---

Explaining every detail in a way that is distinctly based in reality so that you can understand that not all of your ideas are truly realistic could take quite an effort, especially when facts can be interpreted multiple ways.

---

I don't have time to explain every detail, AG, especially not to someone like you, who likes to trample small details (and, even after for explicitly requesting small details, charges that the details are so puny that they don't amount to anything) or use every little point as a springboard for creating long distracting tangents.

Whenever I talk to people about politics, I say, "If you want my opinion, please go online and read about the Project for the New American Century and read their document' Rebuilding America's Defenses.'" That is really all I have to say. To debate foreign policy while ignoring the elephants in the room is not my cup of tea.

The only reason I've talked to you this long is because you occasionally show glimmers of artistry and humanity which I have found reassuring, and wondered if I could do anything to help cultivate that. Probably not, since you seem convinced that I am some kooky girl from outer space, but it's the only real challenge I've had here.

Hope you and your wife have a nice weekend.

posted July 23, 2013 05:32 PM            

quote:

---

Wolfowitz is one of the key architects and executors of our current wars. The death toll for the Iraq war is unknown but suspected to be in the hundreds of thousands.* This is why he is like Hitler. To say that Hitler's actions were illegal and Woflowitz's were legal (according to which judge?) is to focus on a triviality instead of the most obvious and real reason for drawing a comparison: both were instrumental in orchestrating huge, deadly invasions.

---

I don't subscribe to Wolfowitz being similar to Hitler, because Hitler had a whole race to demonize, which isn't the case with Wolfowitz. I don't even know that Wolfowitz is an nationalistic as Hitler. He certainly didn't rise up to be the ultimate commander of his country, which he then brainwashed into committing the holocaust.

quote:

---

To say that Cheney is worse than Wolfowitz is a moot point- all it tells me is that you would like to downplay Wolfowitz's culpability. Why do you do that? You are just ignorant about Wolfowitz and hoping to make me look silly for focusing on him in the first place?

---

I don't wish to play him down. I wish to take him off of this Hilter-esque plateau you've put him on. You're welcome to characterize him as you see fit, and I'm welcome to challenge your characterization. My only point in doing so is an attempt on my part to break down the black-or-white thinking, and allow some gray in.

quote:

---

You see how you lose credibility by referring to events that never happened?

---

You're insinuating an alternative version of the truth again. If you want to say something of substance, go ahead, but don't make out that what I said is false without providing evidence to back your claim.

One incident is almost chilling. Barton Gellman, a journalist and the author of a Cheney biography, recounts how in 2004 Mr. Cheney fought Justice Department lawyers who had determined that the top-secret, warrantless surveillance program that he had pushed for was illegal. Mr. Cheney was so insistent on keeping the wiretaps going that he kept Mr. Bush, then in his re-election campaign, out of the loop until the 11th hour, when two dozen Justice Department lawyers and the F.B.I. director threatened to resign.

Alerted at the last minute about the imminent showdown, Mr. Bush intervened and overruled Mr. Cheney. In his biography, “Decision Points,” Mr. Bush said he felt “blindsided” and likened the consequences to the Saturday Night Massacre debacle during Watergate.

Mr. Cheney, who watched Watergate unfold as a young White House aide, shrugs off the last-minute reversal as a moment of weakness by the president. “My personal view was different in the sense that I basically would have let them resign,” he says blandly, “because I thought the program was perfectly legitimate.”

Mr. Bush’s trust in his vice president plummeted after that face-off, according to the film. Toward the end, when Mr. Bush refused to pardon Mr. Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., for his conviction stemming from the disclosure of the identity of a C.I.A. analyst, Valerie Plame Wilson, the two leaders basically stopped speaking. http://tv.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/arts/television/the- world-according-to-dick-cheney-on-showtime.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

quote:

---

So you believed, or still believe, that we invaded Iraq for false reasons?

---

Yup.

quote:

---

If it was "unnecessary," as you said, then the pursuit of stabilization would have been flawed no matter what the execution. There should have been NO execution. And why get the insurgency under control? Why do anything? We were there for "false reasons" as you said.

See, your logic is wonky.

---

It's not. You see it as wonky, because you're having trouble reconciling my perspectives.

It was unnecessary in my opinion, but they pursued it nonetheless, and after pursuing it they had to deal with the consequences of having pursued it. You like to act as if every decision is made in a vacuum when most decisions aren't. Each decision is intertwined. Sometimes a decision doesn't even seem like a decision, because a person or a group feels compelled to deal with the consequences of previous decisions.

quote:

---

If it was merely our intention to save the Iraqi people from Hussein and protect them from harm, we sure had a funny way of showing it.

---

That's all you can say? I would think that instead of saying something like this you'd have some sort of alternate plan worked out for how you would have saved the Iraqis if you were in Bush's place.

quote:

---

Which factors, AG? You must have a list handy in your head or you wouldn't merely babble like this.

---

Wow. If I'm babbling...it's because you apparently aren't reading what I'm saying. I mean, this is ridiculous. Did you not read about the Oil for Food program, and it's apparent failure in its humanitarian mission?

quote:

---

So you think the iniation of the war was stupid. How about the rest of it, though? See, as someone who is anti-war, I wouldn't make an ambiguous comment like that.

---

You wouldn't make an ambiguous comment like that? Really? You continuously make ambiguous statements exactly like that. Every time you attempt to correct me, you do so without any specificity.
Aside from that, I did tell you:

I thought the war was unnecessary from the get go. I thought the pursuit of stabilization was flawed in it's execution. I thought that there needed to be an engagement with the Iraqi people in order to get the insurgency under control, which eventually the Bush administration did pursue. -ME, just LAST post

quote:

---

There is no "nuance" here on your part, there is just an apparent moral ambivalence, and what strikes me as a blind spot in you that prevents you from recognizing yourself.

---

There is. Once again, you're just declaring something as being the way YOU see it, not the way it actually is, but then you know you're merely "throwing the knife back," and not engaging yourself in any sort of realistic discussion.

quote:

---

Shall I violate copyright law and transcribe my books to you over the internet? No.

---

One wouldn't have to violate copyright to make points if they were easily proven and demonstrable. This is yet another excuse to get out of showing your reasoning.

quote:

---

What I've tried to do is rouse your curiosity from its apparently long, long hibernation,

---

My curiosity is rather constant. If you're trying to rouse it, you've done well. I've looked into LOADS of things as a result of discussing things with you. You have not reciprocated in the slightest. I think it's silly that you would try to make me out as the un-curious member of this conversation.

quote:

---

Why would I do that? My own experience will of course trump whatever astro.com says.

---

Oh I don't know...to get a third party opinion. I would assume that you've already seen some opinions of me here in this forum, but if that doesn't suffice I thought maybe a random astrologer working from my chart alone might jog your consciousness into understanding who you are dealing with.

My psychological type starts out with this:

You possess the gift of a clear, strong and objective mind, and you are a lover of truth and integrity in all your dealings. You will always favour reason over chaos, and principles over personal reactions.

[...]Your mind does not fly off into realms of abstract theory and philosophy, but remains firmly grounded in reality, testing each concept against life as it is. You have well-developed organising abilities, great common sense, a careful, orderly and perhaps scientifically [...]

Maybe yours starts the same. I would be intrigued to learn it, if that were so.

"Testing each concept against life as it is" That summarizes my conversation with you. You think that for each test I put your beliefs through, I'm not comprehensive enough to actually find you correct; as if a cursory misunderstanding of the facts might give way to a greater truth that I'm missing. You've had the option to speak my language this whole time in convincing me that the greater truth is what you believe it is, but there is no desire there. You say there is [desire] now, but it's not evident in your posts. You'd much prefer dropping it, and assuming that your understanding is comprehensive, and that mine is somehow lacking.

Notable in our dealings is your lack of humility. I sit here, and try to make concessions to you in a lot of posts (Moon in Virgo), but all you see is the condescension. I don't see you conceding anything outside of your opinion that I'm probably not all bad. You say that you have to pry some locked doors to get me to understand something. How about you?

quote:

---

But I'm sure you are a decent fellow in many other respects.

---

quote:

---

My mind is wide open. WIDE. OPEN.

---

Obviously not.

quote:

---

The biggest lesson I've learned here is that AG is skeptical/fearful of non-mainstream information to the extent that he repeatedly constructs elaborate excuses to bat it away, just to save himself from the hazard of actually having to dirty his hands with examining the noxious, stigmatized-as-conspiratorial information close up.

---

Hmmm...that's interesting considering the factual information I've posted which has nothing to do with me. Why are you paying attention to your formulation of who I am instead of taking in what I ['m trying to] convey as information?

I'm not skeptical of non-mainstream information in the slightest. I'm skeptical of non-truthful information. I'm skeptical of bad logic and poor reasoning. Information is information. I don't care whether it would be considered "mainstream" by you (which is arbitrary, by the way), or not. It would be difficult for anyone here not to notice that you revel in having non-mainstream ideas. I think everyone gets the allure of buying into something that is on the fringe in some way. Not everything on the fringe is attractive, though, and in this case, not everything out of the ordinary constitutes the extraordinary. We're talking politics for which there are many shades [obviously]. Just because a person believes their shade is the correct one, doesn't make it so. Every idea can still be tested objectively (or non-objectively as is sometimes the case).

I don't make excuses either. I can't really tolerate the term ["excuse"] to be honest. There is reason, or there is not. A reason that is unaccepted by an audience is made out to be an "excuse," but that determination is subjective to the audience. The truth is what is factual. What I say certainly wouldn't constitute an "elaborate excuse" either. If I'm verbose, it's because someone is demonstrating an inability to understand what I'm saying.

quote:

---

I don't have time to explain every detail, AG, especially not to someone like you, who likes to trample small details (and, even after for explicitly requesting small details, charges that the details are so puny that they don't amount to anything) or use every little point as a springboard for creating long distracting tangents.

---

I really shouldn't write my responses until I've finished reading your posts.
Ok, so now you're admitting that you really don't have any desire to pry open those supposedly lock doors. Yes, I was well aware of that as was anyone reading.
"Trample small details." Yup, I engage in that. If a detail can withstand scrutiny, then it may be pertinent, but screw it...you'd rather assume its viability than entertain the opposite. I would say that I "test" small details.
"use every little point as a springboard for creating long distracting tangents" Well, yeah, considering that you're supposed to be giving a unified theory of something...if you were to leave out the inconvenient details, then how could anyone know whether you know your stuff or not? An example: You got genocide out of the Iraq war. How is it that so many opinions would deviate from yours if you have things so ultimately correct? Are "they" all just stupid?

quote:

---

Whenever I talk to people about politics, I say, "If you want my opinion, please go online and read about the Project for the New American Century and read their document' Rebuilding America's Defenses.'" That is really all I have to say. To debate foreign policy while ignoring the elephants in the room is not my cup of tea.

---

I would totally buy that if you weren't a poster in GU, and if I didn't know that you frequent some other forum as well (learned from some thread where people were talking about picking non-gender-specific handles to avoid stereotyping against women), and if you hadn't posted a diatribe from perhaps an additional forum. I do buy it in the sense that I understand that it's really all that you'd like to say, and you'd rather not be challenged on the accuracy of your beliefs. If a theory is too easy or simplistic in some way, that is typically what draws my attention. I don't really understand why people wouldn't be able to prove their beliefs. I strangely think that everyone's beliefs should be the product of rigorous screening...including my own. If a person is unable or unwilling, then that says something, too, and I'm happy to understand that inability or stubbornness.

quote:

---

The only reason I've talked to you this long is because you occasionally show glimmers of artistry and humanity which I have found reassuring, and wondered if I could do anything to help cultivate that. Probably not, since you seem convinced that I am some kooky girl from outer space, but it's the only real challenge I've had here.

---

I know how that goes. It's similar to my feelings on Randall. He's generally a warm dude, but our interaction hasn't always been the greatest.
That said, the notion of you cultivating my already well-developed artistry and humanity is pretty insulting. I mean, I don't even know whether you do art well. Nor do I know if you espouse a philosophy, nor whether it's human, or based on fantasy. I named myself AcousticGod. Who does that? Probably someone who's at least pretty good on guitar, but that's not the only instrument I'm good on. I play piano and bass, too, all competently. I can also draw. I dabble with paint here and there. My wife thinks I'm meticulous for not throwing art together. On the humanity side, I grew up Christian in the church. I wanted to be a pastor growing up (I want to be an artist now). I thought briefly that Ayn Rand was brilliant only to later decide that she misunderstood human nature in her campaign against altruism. My chart is focused on the 7th (others) with a servant Virgo Moon. How could I be less humanistic?

quote:

---

Hope you and your wife have a nice weekend.

---

posted July 23, 2013 05:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
None of the grays I've spoken to seem to know you.

---