OT: LSB presidential poll

One reason I follow this is that my sister in law has some paralysis.  She is also one of the small group who have had ASC surgery from Dr. Lima in Portugal.  She was the oldest ever to have the surgery - age 42 - as Dr. Lima suspects results might be better with younger patients.  

Post surgery, my sis in law was not able to do anything so dramatic as walking.  However, ASC cells did regenerate in her spinal cord enough to allow her to sweat for the first time after her injury.  She regained feeling she had not had before.  She regained muscle connection in her trunk, and is now able to swivel her trunk.  She  gained overall strength in her body.  She weighed a dangerously low 80 pounds at time of surgery.  She has since gained 40 pounds, and is now much stronger and healthier.  She is strong enough to teach a full time class schedule in the 8th grade.

Dr. Lima works closely with University of Detroit.  When his procedure is approved for use in the U.S., University of Detroit will be the initial provider.  At this time, the surgery is only offered for persons who are less than two years out from their incidence of spinal cord injury, and for persons who experienced spinal cord bruising (as opposed to having their spinal cord severed).  

You would be more credible if you cited specifics, as the ESC/ASC commenter above does.  He is very credible.  He engages at the level of facts and ideas and logic.  

I realize "light as cotton candy" is playful, even as it also represents your true sentiment.  

"Obama and McCain are intellectually unprepared for the office.  They have limited understandings of Constitutional rights, of economics, and of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Obama, in particular - while personally likable - is intellectually light as cotton candy.  Please take a closer look at these candidates."

I think my comment refers to Obama and McCain not having done their intellectual homework on issues.  

However, I'm not a professsional writer.  Therefore, just to make certain I was not misunderstood, I expended several comment replies to make it clear that I do not believe Obama has a low IQ.

In your defense, the commments are somewhat hard to follow, as many subsequent comments have occurred.

That said, I nevertheless deserve an apology  over your "fascist" comment, if nothing else.

Finally, its ALWAYS easy to aim ad hominem at someone.  Yet, I disagree that someone can be "dismissed" via ad hominem.  

A discussion ought be about facts and ideas and reasoning and logic.  I don't believe personal characteristics ought be important factors.    

All of us want to minimize death and pain and suffering as much as possible.

In this area, the major point of contention is:  What is the threat?

Because we disagree on what constitutes the threat, we therefore disagree on how best to minimize death and pain and suffering.  

The proper discussion - the only actual debate which is initially possible - is about what constitutes the threat.  Without agreement on that matter, we can only have two people shouting at each other

about methods of countering two different threats - i.e. we can only have simultaneous monologues about two different subjects (which is what invariably happens).  No true discussion can occur.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I appreciate the chance to defend myself via replying your specifics!  Also: I like you too much to see you go forward under the weight of false assumptions!

1.  You assert:  WMD= false pretense

Reply:  Since Saddam was intentionally giving the world the impression that he had WMD*, and since his having WMD violated the Gulf War I treaty, we were justified in taking him out.

Note that I said "justified" in taking him out.  Many other factors must be considered before actually moving to take someone out.  However, we were justified:  a) legally - due to broken treaty and

broken U.N. obligations; b) morally - via doctrine of self defense, i.e. if someone pretends they are a threat to you, and you believe they are a threat to you, you are justified in defending yourself.

2A.  You assert:  9/11= false pretense    

Reply:  In 1998, the American people heard President Clinton and Sec. of State Madeline Albright (and a bunch of Senators from both parties) say Saddam was a threat to give WMD to terrorists.  

After 9/11/01, the American people remembered that, and made their own logical conclusions about what kind of future threat Saddam might be to the U.S.  

Re Saddam literally being involved in plotting or executing 9/11: I dispute any contention that the Bush Administration actively tried to link Saddam to the attacks of 9/11.  This was not part of any

public rationalization for launching OIF. **

2B.  You assert:  Pres. Bush launched OIF as a political countermeasure to 9/11.  

Reply:  You and I must agree to disagree.  Neither of us can prove or disprove.

3A.  You assert:  Pres. Bush falsely claimed Humanitarian purpose in removing  Saddam.  As evidence, you proffer that lack of sufficient Darfur/Sudan effort invalidates  claim to humanitarian

purpose in Iraq.  

Reply:  The OIF decision was based upon multiple factors.  "Humanitarian purpose" was one factor among very many factors.

3B. You assert:  "how long has Saddam been out of power now" - the  implication being that we should have already withdrawn our forces.  

Reply:  This makes no sense inside a context of humanitarian purpose.  It is not a humanitarian good to now abandon Iraq to a) a chaotic state of nature, and b) the Iranian wolf.

4.  You assert:  only Pres. Bush can know his purpose.

Reply:  Technically true.  The discussion you are truly pointing is:  What is the threat?

5A.  You assert:  If we were not distracted by OIF, we would've capture Osama Bin Laden already.

Reply:  Strategically... whatever.  OBL's logistical and tactical capabilities have been eviscerated.  Capturing OBL is not worth the cost to us (over and above what we are already expending).  

We have reduced him, and reduced him, and reduced him, until, at this point, he is truly not that important.  We may not physically have possession of OBL's  skin and bones; yet we physically have

possession of the capabilities he once possessed, yet no longer possesses.  We may not have the skin and bones, but, in a sense, we have the man.  He is no longer what he was.

5B.  You assert:  "OBL still lures in the region laughing at this administration."

Reply:  You and I must agree to disagree.  I do not think the region is laughing at the Bush administration.  Neither of us can prove or disprove - although, I can prove some are not laughing at the

Bush Administration:  Khalid Sheikh Muhammad,  Ramzi bin al Sheeb, Saddam, Saddam sons, Chemical Ali, Zarqawi, and various of their friends and associates.

6.  You assert:  "Democracy cannot be forced on people."

Reply:  Hmmm.  You make an interesting and critically important point.  Maybe I agree with it.  

Democracy was in some ways "forced" upon Germany, Japan, and Korea.  However, it's my judgement that those cultures were prepared to accept democracy.  The people were willing.

Democracy in Iraq is a type of experiment.  We don't know if it will work.  After Iraq, we will know more about how effective or ineffective democracy can be in such a situation.  We will benefit from

lessons learned.

I say the odds are that democracy will work in Iraq.  However, odds are only odds.  I am speculating.  The outcome is unknown.

Here is a key question:  Will the lessons learned be worth the blood and treasure?  

How one answers depends on what one perceives the threat to be.

7.  You assert:  the surge is not working.

Reply:  I hugely disagree.  But, I think this, also, comes down to the question of what you and I each perceive the threat to be.  Our answer will affect what we each believe our goals ought to be, and

therefore will affect whether we each believe the surge is accomplishing those goals.

8.  You assert:  war is a farce.

Reply:  War is a tragedy.  Self defense is a necessity.  Fantasy is a farce.

It was very gracious of you to make a specific attempt to "pick apart... your [my] arguments", thus giving me a chance to defend.  You put your logic and your beliefs out there, which is gutsy, and is

more than some of our ad hominem-flinging fellow LSBers have been willing to do.  I am proud to be a fellow LSBer with you - and also proud to be a fellow U.S. citizen with you, for that matter.  

Free discussion, at the level of ideas and logic and reason, is part of what makes our nation great.

PS:  too bad this thread is now forgotten, and the troll polls are closed.  I would love to have tried for at least 3 votes in the next poll.  That would have been a 50% improvement!

*Per 60 Minutes interview with Saddam's FBI interrogator, George Piro:  Saddam wanted Iran and the world to believe Iraq had WMD.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120182537976533691.html  

**This question:  "Did Bush Admin. push Saddam-9/11 link as reason for OIF?", has been heavily batted about inside the blogosphere.  Only a couple of Bush Administration spokespersons'

utterances can arguably be said to have made this contention - and those instances occurred in the obscurity of cable news interviews.  Balanced against those instances are dozens and dozens of

major public assertions - inclu. inside major speeches - by Pres. Bush and administration spokespersons that no link existed between Saddam and 9/11.  That the Bush Administration pushed such

a link as war justification is nothing more than urban legend and false political accusation.  If you, or anyone, can Google up more evidence to support the assertion, you will be doing big favors to

both truth and the Democratic Party.  Although, Dems don't really need any evidence to be discovered, as the legend is already in the echo chamber, and pervasive.

All of us want to minimize death and pain and suffering as much as possible.

In this area, the major point of contention is:  What is the threat?

Because we disagree on what constitutes the threat, we therefore disagree on how best to minimize death and pain and suffering.  

The proper discussion - the only actual debate which is initially possible - is about what constitutes the threat.  Without agreement on that matter, we can only have two people shouting at each other about methods of countering two different threats - i.e. we can only have simultaneous monologues about two different subjects (which is what invariably happens).  No true discussion can occur.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I appreciate the chance to defend myself via replying your specifics!  Also: I like you too much to see you go forward under the weight of false assumptions!

1.  You assert:  WMD= false pretense

Reply:  Since Saddam was intentionally giving the world the impression that he had WMD*, and since his having WMD violated the Gulf War I treaty, we were justified in taking him out.

Note that I said "justified" in taking him out.  Many other factors must be considered before actually moving to take someone out.  However, we were justified:  a) legally - due to broken treaty and broken U.N. obligations; b) morally - via doctrine of self defense, i.e. if someone pretends they are a threat to you, and you believe they are a threat to you, you are justified in defending yourself.

2A.  You assert:  9/11= false pretense    

Reply:  In 1998, the American people heard President Clinton and Sec. of State Madeline Albright (and a bunch of Senators from both parties) say Saddam was a threat to give WMD to terrorists.  

After 9/11/01, the American people remembered that, and made their own logical conclusions about what kind of future threat Saddam might be to the U.S.  

Re Saddam literally being involved in plotting or executing 9/11: I dispute any contention that the Bush Administration actively tried to link Saddam to the attacks of 9/11.  This was not part of any public rationalization for launching OIF. **

2B.  You assert:  Pres. Bush launched OIF as a political countermeasure to 9/11.  

Reply:  You and I must agree to disagree.  Neither of us can prove or disprove.

3A.  You assert:  Pres. Bush falsely claimed Humanitarian purpose in removing  Saddam.  As evidence, you proffer that lack of sufficient Darfur/Sudan effort invalidates  claim to humanitarian purpose in Iraq.  

Reply:  The OIF decision was based upon multiple factors.  "Humanitarian purpose" was one factor among very many factors.

3B. You assert:  "how long has Saddam been out of power now" - the  implication being that we should have already withdrawn our forces.  

Reply:  This makes no sense inside a context of humanitarian purpose.  It is not a humanitarian good to now abandon Iraq to a) a chaotic state of nature, and b) the Iranian wolf.

4.  You assert:  only Pres. Bush can know his purpose.

Reply:  Technically true.  The discussion you are truly pointing is:  What is the threat?

5A.  You assert:  If we were not distracted by OIF, we would've capture Osama Bin Laden already.

Reply:  Strategically... whatever.  OBL's logistical and tactical capabilities have been eviscerated.  Capturing OBL is not worth the cost to us (over and above what we are already expending).  

We have reduced him, and reduced him, and reduced him, until, at this point, he is truly not that important.  We may not physically have possession of OBL's  skin and bones; yet we physically have possession of the capabilities he once possessed, yet no longer possesses.  We may not have the skin and bones, but, in a sense, we have the man.  He is no longer what he was.

5B.  You assert:  "OBL still lures in the region laughing at this administration."

Reply:  You and I must agree to disagree.  I do not think the region is laughing at the Bush administration.  Neither of us can prove or disprove - although, I can prove some are not laughing at the Bush Administration:  Khalid Sheikh Muhammad,  Ramzi bin al Sheeb, Saddam, Saddam sons, Chemical Ali, Zarqawi, and various of their friends and associates.

6.  You assert:  "Democracy cannot be forced on people."

Reply:  Hmmm.  You make an interesting and critically important point.  Maybe I agree with it.  

Democracy was in some ways "forced" upon Germany, Japan, and Korea.  However, it's my judgement that those cultures were prepared to accept democracy.  The people were willing.

Democracy in Iraq is a type of experiment.  We don't know if it will work.  After Iraq, we will know more about how effective or ineffective democracy can be in such a situation.  We will benefit from lessons learned.

I say the odds are that democracy will work in Iraq.  However, odds are only odds.  I am speculating.  The outcome is unknown.

Here is a key question:  Will the lessons learned be worth the blood and treasure?  

How one answers depends on what one perceives the threat to be.

7.  You assert:  the surge is not working.

Reply:  I hugely disagree.  But, I think this, also, comes down to the question of what you and I each perceive the threat to be.  Our answer will affect what we each believe our goals ought to be, and therefore will affect whether we each believe the surge is accomplishing those goals.

8.  You assert:  war is a farce.

Reply:  War is a tragedy.  Self defense is a necessity.  Fantasy is a farce.

It was very gracious of you to make a specific attempt to "pick apart... your [my] arguments", thus giving me a chance to defend.  You put your logic and your beliefs out there, which is gutsy, and is more than some of our ad hominem-flinging fellow LSBers have been willing to do.  I am proud to be a fellow LSBer with you - and also proud to be a fellow U.S. citizen with you, for that matter.  Free discussion, at the level of ideas and logic and reason, is part of what makes our nation great.

PS:  too bad this thread is now forgotten, and the troll polls are closed.  I would love to have tried for at least 3 votes in the next poll.  That would have been a 50% improvement!

*Per 60 Minutes interview with Saddam's FBI interrogator, George Piro:  Saddam wanted Iran and the world to believe Iraq had WMD.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120182537976533691.html  

**This question:  "Did Bush Admin. push Saddam-9/11 link as reason for OIF?", has been heavily batted about inside the blogosphere.  Only a couple of Bush Administration spokespersons' utterances can arguably be said to have made this contention - and those instances occurred in the obscurity of cable news interviews.  Balanced against those instances are dozens and dozens of major public assertions - inclu. inside major speeches - by Pres. Bush and administration spokespersons that no link existed between Saddam and 9/11.  That the Bush Administration pushed such a link as war justification is nothing more than urban legend and false political accusation.  If you, or anyone, can Google up more evidence to support the assertion, you will be doing big favors to both truth and the Democratic Party.  Although, Dems don't really need any evidence to be discovered, as the legend is already in the echo chamber, and pervasive.