Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Whatever happened to Afghanistan?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    You're starting to tick me off, Bill, so I'm going to (hopefully) say as little as possible and go cool off.

    Originally posted by Bill
    ...there is a distinct moral flavoring to these debates that is unsettling... this notion that "I have a personal belief, and it therefore must be right on a global scale" is nonsense...
    If that's your assessment of my methodology, then I guess you and I can quit debating. You say you don't think we should be in Iraq, but you apologize for the administration by saying the war was "entered into following the prescribed process under the Constitution." You like to mention that things "make no sense" but you often make no sense yourself. You're so busy feeling picked on that a lot of the time (more and more lately) your arguments fall flat or are outright BS.

    Case in point:

    Originally posted by Bill
    ...tax cuts would directly put money in my pocket, bvut I believe would strongly hurt this country. No offense to you Jagged, but I don't see a lot of Bush bashers making that kind of analysis. I see - and this is anecdotal, and therefore essentially useless, but - people who have a special interest, say, Federal recognition of gay marriages, wanting to further an agenda and using any means necessary.
    This is utter crap. I am a Bush-basher. I despise the man. And I HAVE made the analysis of which you speak. Also, I HAVE NOT tried to push any single agenda, be it gay marriage, abortion, or any other act of freedom that puts a twist in the panties of the sanctimonious Religious Right (the ones with the true f*cked-up agenda).

    Originally posted by Bill
    Why is it so hard to accept the fact that there is a strong possibility that what is good for the country is NOT good for you in particular?
    This war is NOT good for our country. You yourself have said you agree with this statement (though in different words). It's like you'll apologize for this administration even if you don't agree with what they're doing. I prefer to stand up against what I don't agree with, not make excuses for it.
    "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
    --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Bill

      I have no problem with a well-thought out argument in any direction, and I will be the first person to accept that and move forward accordingly. But this notion that "I have a personal belief, and it therefore must be right on a global scale" is nonsense, but no one is willing to admit that. For example, tax cuts would directly put money in my pocket, bvut I believe would strongly hurt this country. No offense to you Jagged, but I don't see a lot of Bush bashers making that kind of analysis. I see - and this is anecdotal, and therefore essentially useless, but - people who have a special interest, say, Federal recognition of gay marriages, wanting to further an agenda and using any means necessary. "Bush lies!", "War in Iraq feeds big corporations!!", reagrdless of, and sometimes in spite of, the veracity of those statements.
      While I agree with Bill that the idea that Bush lies has nothing to do with gay marriages, such logic doesn't enter the realm of politics, sadly enough. Politicians throw out red herrings all of the time, which means that political discourse (including ours here) is full of them as well. On the other side of the coin, Bush has used 9/11 as his rationale or response to things that have nothing to do with the event.

      I guess what I'm saying is that we don't always have the luxury of defining debates. That's not an excuse to mindlessly parrot what we hear, but it does explain much of how we understand and talk about things.

      I think this is germaine to the conversation...

      Of course, "Bush lied" as a red herring might be irrelevant if Bush hadn't lied so much.

      Comment


      • #78
        Hey Psychic, calm down. Re-read what I said: "But there is a distinct moral flavoring to these debates that is unsettling. AGAIN, talking generally, not personally." I went to great lengths to say I was NOT talking about our discussion, or your debating techniques, or your position.

        "This war is NOT good for our country. You yourself have said you agree with this statement (though in different words)."

        I have not; I said I wouldn't have started the war. That is different. I could have been wrong in not starting it. I don't know whether the war is good or not for the country. How do you know? It's your opinion, nothing more.

        "It's like you'll apologize for this administration even if you don't agree with what they're doing. I prefer to stand up against what I don't agree with, not make excuses for it."

        Even at the expense of the country? Your personal feelings are more important than the rest of the 290 million people that live here? I am not apologizing for Bush; I can make the same argument against Bush with respect to abortion. Just because Bush is personally against it, doesn't mean that has to be his political position IF the majority of Americans don't see it that way. I admire John Kerry in this regard on this issue. He is Catholic and has gone on record as saying he is personally against choice, but sees it as his duty to represent the will of his constituency. Admirable.

        But there are people here - NOT YOU!!!!!! - who can't separate like that. There is one person here - NOT YOU!!!!! - that will take any opportunity whatsoever to bash the Bush administration, regardless of whether the bashing is justified or even factually correct. You call them on it, and the response is either "well, he's been wrong on XX issue, so he's got to be wrong here too", or "well, the Democrats are no better; all politicians are scum bags".

        Let me ask you this: Murderer gets off on a legal technicality, but all evidence is clear that the guy did it. He even admits he did it. But he's free. Is a cop who frames him on a second charge - falsely accusing him of another murder and manufacturing proof to that effect - right? Isn't the net effect the same? Murderer off the street in jail.

        This would cause outrage. So why is this allowed in our political system? And by the way, Kerry and Bush are BOTH victims of this.

        Why?

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Bill
          I went to great lengths to say I was NOT talking about our discussion, or your debating techniques, or your position.
          Felt lumped into that group you claim feel the need to impose their beliefs on other people. If I was not a part of that group, cool, but I'm still feeling a bit put off by that comment.

          Originally posted by Bill
          Even at the expense of the country? Your personal feelings are more important than the rest of the 290 million people that live here?
          No. It's just my opinion and I stand by it. You're really giving us all way too much credit, I think. We aren't setting US policy here at MWM, we're debating issues. Nothing in the US is going to change just because I think this war is crap and Congress acted like a bunch of naive dipshits when they voted to go to war (fully knowing, by the way, that none of their children would have to go).

          I am free to disagree with Congress's decision am I not? I am free to express that disagreement, am I not? You are free to ignore me, correct? My opinion doesn't put the country at risk. So, honestly, this particular tack you've taken doesn't work for me. Sorry. Congress made a bad decision (you agree?) and I have no problem shouting that opinion from the rooftops.

          Originally posted by Bill
          But there are people here - NOT YOU!!!!!! - who can't separate like that. There is one person here - NOT YOU!!!!!
          Okay, okay, I got it. Not me.

          Originally posted by Bill
          I could have been wrong in not starting [the Iraq war]. I don't know whether the war is good or not for the country. How do you know? It's your opinion, nothing more.
          Yes, it's just an opinion. Most of what all of us here are saying is mere opinion. No revelation there. Sorry for stating it like fact, but I feel stupid prefacing all my opinions with IMHO. I would hope you knew when I was opining and when I was referencing a fact.

          Originally posted by Bill
          Let me ask you this: Murderer gets off on a legal technicality, but all evidence is clear that the guy did it. He even admits he did it. But he's free. Is a cop who frames him on a second charge - falsely accusing him of another murder and manufacturing proof to that effect - right? Isn't the net effect the same? Murderer off the street in jail.

          This would cause outrage. So why is this allowed in our political system?
          I have to assume, with reagard to Bush, you're referring to the whole recent CBS debacle; that Bush was 'framed' by someone with these false documents regarding his 'military service.' Poppycock. There's just as much chance the documents were created by conservatives to put a blemish on liberal campaigning, so that isn't even worth arguing about. It will go nowhere.

          The obvious answer is it shouldn't be allowed. I certainly do not condone it. The ONLY agenda I admit to promoting is the one that makes the huge gap between the social classes a lot smaller.
          "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
          --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

          Comment


          • #80
            PWV, one thing strikes me as distorted:
            WHY SHOULDN'T your personal views and feelings matter a lot, maybe even more than a country IF (and only in this context!) you have a man at the helm whose personal feelings dictate the politics of that very country? Whose personal "crusader feelings" risk the destablization of the entire Middle East and whose fanatic belief in being right kindles more fires than he can objectively put out. Who feels there are WMD's out there and feels the rest of the world oughta believe what his views are.
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/s...284265,00.html
            If your country can afford a man who follows his feelings and risks to set the whole world on fire, then, my friend, you can allow yourself strong feelings and subjective views.
            My humble, and subjective, view ...!
            Google ergo sum

            Comment


            • #81
              Thanks for that, LEtranger. I definitely do not feel that what Bush is doing is "good for the country" but stating that obviously isn't enough.

              I don't want to put words in Bill's mouth, but I suspect he would argue that Bush is doing what his constituents want him to do and thus is not dictating the politics of the US based on his own beliefs. I see it, of course, as you do: that Bush and Co. have manipulated everyone they can (including Congress and hapless Americans who are simply afraid of being blown up) to do their bidding. But again, it would be argued these are just opinions because, really, we don't know squat about what goes on behind the scenes.

              I do know, however, that something behind the scenes is causing a terrible smell...
              "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
              --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

              Comment


              • #82
                More than that Bill, it makes it harder to tell what the truth is. If someone forges documents about GW, then any other documents about GW become suspect. There so much garbage out there it's hard to tell the truth. I really wish we had a viable third party because I'm not happy with Bush, but I can't vote for a ticket with John Edwards on it because of record as an ambulance chaser.



                Originally posted by Bill
                Let me ask you this: Murderer gets off on a legal technicality, but all evidence is clear that the guy did it. He even admits he did it. But he's free. Is a cop who frames him on a second charge - falsely accusing him of another murder and manufacturing proof to that effect - right? Isn't the net effect the same? Murderer off the street in jail.

                This would cause outrage. So why is this allowed in our political system? And by the way, Kerry and Bush are BOTH victims of this.

                Why?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Ambulance chaser? Spoken like someone that has never needed an attorney and mistakenly identifes himself as a member of the upper class.

                  Yesterday I saw a television news item on people that had objects left inside of them for years after having various surgeries performed: one woman had some weird stringy sponge inside her, a man had a 10" surgical clamp, another woman had some kind of thin metal object inside her (of an absolutely stunning size - frigging huge), etc.

                  I suppose you'd like to see these incidents capped off at a few grand? After all years of painful suffering isn't worth anything, right? It's not like the surgeons, nurses, or hospitals were actually negligent, right? Yeah, they just happened to leave huge foreign objects inside these people's bodies - that could happen. It's not like they're supposed to count the items involved in the surgery and then account for each one of them afterwards, right?

                  Kitsune - you are the epitome of cheap labor Republicanism. Protecting the interests of another class just makes you pathetic. My guess is that you flip burgers for a living or work at Wal-mart. But you're going to be rich any day now, right? That lottery ticket will pay off - finally!

                  I want to see you the day after a traumatic event when you are seeking an attorney to help you out. I want to see your smugness evaporate as you are confronted by your own myopic worldview.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Kitsune
                    ...but I can't vote for a ticket with John Edwards on it because of record as an ambulance chaser.
                    Not to add to your beating, Kitsune, but this really does sound like something you heard somewhere and latched onto. Let me put things in perspective, in case Foozle didn't make it clear enough.

                    A Washington Times article that would have you believe Edwards is an "ambulance chaser" and nothing more had this to say:

                    "During his 20 years of suing doctors and hospitals, he pioneered the art of blaming... doctors for delivering babies with cerebral palsy..."

                    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1234-1949r.htm

                    BUT, it kind of makes sense when you find out that "medical mistakes are the cause of thousands and thousands of cerebral palsy cases."

                    According to about-cerebral-palsy.org, these are some of the mistakes made by medical practitioners which are known to cause Cerebral Palsy:

                    • leaving the child in the birth canal too long causing a lack of oxygen to the brain
                    • failure to recognize and treat seizures following delivery
                    • failure to detect a prolapsed cord (the umbilical cord can wrap around the child's neck, cutting off oxygen to the brain)
                    • excessive use of vacuum extraction
                    • improper use of forceps
                    • failure to perform a cesarean section in the presence of fetal distress
                    • not responding to changes in the fetal heart rate
                    • failure to plan a c-section (a large birth weight infant could compromise a normal spontaneous vaginal delivery)
                    • failure to respond to the mothers changing conditions, such as high blood pressure or toxemia
                    • failure to timely diagnose and treat jaundice
                    • failure to timely diagnose and treat meningitis

                    These are all things that a qualified obstetrician should be able to avoid.

                    Let me ask you this. Your wife (or girlfriend) has trouble giving birth to your baby girl so the doctor decides to use forceps. He damages the baby's brain, giving her Cerebral Palsy. Wouldn't you like to have a successful medical malpractrice lawyer on your side? Or would you forego an attorney and just accept your daughter's fate because you so strongly agree with tort reform?
                    "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                    --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      "Ambulance chaser? Spoken like someone that has never needed an attorney and mistakenly identifes himself as a member of the upper class. "

                      Sport, I AM an attorney, and while not a tort trial lawyer (like Edwards) I deal with them pretty regularly. For every one case you use to make your point, I can give you TEN where the lawyer was not so altruistic.

                      And by the way, please go back and read the posts made here before you start yapping away on that "mistakenly identifying with the upper class" crap. Theadlerian tried that tactic a week ago or so, to no avail. I for one am tired of repeating myself.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        If you're a lawyer than you know that courts already have remedies for frivolous cases and don't require tort reform on any basis.

                        Need more be said? Doubtless you will have something more to say anyway.

                        Strange, a lawyer that has to work for living protecting the interests of those that don't. Are they your clients? Or do you mistakenly identify with them because you own some stock?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Case and point. A friend of my fathers was an eye doctor. Another doctor screwed up a surgery and caused the man to have eye problems, refereed him to my father's friend, he recommended certain medicines and that the patient didn't take and got sued. The doctor responsible settled out of court, so they went on to sue my father's friend. The company handling his malpractice insurance went under, so he was bankrupted.

                          This is not an isolated scenario, it's common practice for lawyers like Edwards to place as many defendants on the list as possible, regardless of how much they have to do with the issue.

                          I did read the article PWV mentioned, but as for http://www.about-cerebral-palsy.org/...lpractice.html. I have serious doubts about the validity of a web page that has advertisements for malpractice lawyers on the page in question. That would be like producing a document from the tobacco industry as evidence that smoking isn't harmful.

                          Originally posted by Bill
                          "Ambulance chaser? Spoken like someone that has never needed an attorney and mistakenly identifes himself as a member of the upper class. "

                          Sport, I AM an attorney, and while not a tort trial lawyer (like Edwards) I deal with them pretty regularly. For every one case you use to make your point, I can give you TEN where the lawyer was not so altruistic.

                          And by the way, please go back and read the posts made here before you start yapping away on that "mistakenly identifying with the upper class" crap. Theadlerian tried that tactic a week ago or so, to no avail. I for one am tired of repeating myself.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Kitsune
                            Case and point. A friend of my fathers was an eye doctor. Another doctor screwed up a surgery and caused the man to have eye problems, refereed him to my father's friend, he recommended certain medicines and that the patient didn't take and got sued. The doctor responsible settled out of court, so they went on to sue my father's friend. The company handling his malpractice insurance went under, so he was bankrupted.
                            Your example may be true, but it is an extremely botched scenario and cannot be the norm. Further, blaming a malpractice lawyer for the screw-ups of the doctor's insurance company is downright stupid. That example sucks, Kitsune.

                            But, since you neglected to answer my hypothetical question, I suspect, once again, that you are regurgitating your father's political opinions without any real understanding of the issues. Why not put your dad on this board so we can get the opinions straight from the horse's mouth?

                            Originally posted by Kitsune
                            I did read the article PWV mentioned, but as for http://www.about-cerebral-palsy.org/dia...tice.html. I have serious doubts about the validity of a web page that has advertisements for malpractice lawyers on the page in question.
                            Oh.. my... GAWD! You deny facts because you don't like the source. Fine, Kitsune, do you approve of this source?

                            http://www.cerebral-palsy.us.com/cer...sy_causes.html

                            How 'bout this one?

                            http://www.cerebralpalsyfacts.com/medmistake.htm

                            This one?

                            http://www.webhealthcentre.com/gener...ause.asp#cause

                            Do you need more? Let me know.
                            "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                            --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Bill
                              And by the way, please go back and read the posts made here before you start yapping away on that "mistakenly identifying with the upper class" crap. Theadlerian tried that tactic a week ago or so, to no avail. I for one am tired of repeating myself.
                              It would probably be easier for you to find your posts and link Foozle to them than for him/her to seek them out. This place is huge, Bill. I hate repeating myself, too, but I do it because it's all about getting my message out there. If you'd rather take the complacent approach, that's fine, but you risk being seen as "conceding to the opposition" as Foozle put it in another thread.

                              Just my two cents. Take it or leave it.
                              "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                              --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Well lets see what I found on these pages:
                                That leaves... http://www.cerebral-palsy.us.com/cer...sy_causes.html

                                EXPERT HELP IS AVAILABLE AT NO CHARGE TO HELP DETERMINE IF YOUR CHILD'S CEREBRAL PALSY WAS PREVENTABLE. IF YOU ARE CONCERNED THAT A MEDICAL MISTAKE MAY HAVE CAUSED YOUR CHILD'S CEREBRAL PALSY OR BRAIN DAMAGE, PLEASE VISIT THE WEBSITE AT HTTP://WWW.LAWYERSINCORPORATED.COM OR CALL 1-800-888-LAWS TO FIND OUT MORE.
                                http://www.webhealthcentre.com/gener...ause.asp#cause
                                was better, it had no links, but simply stated two different theories with no studies or information about the validity of those theories.


                                On other matters; PWV, you missed the point... the doctor in question never should have been sued in the first place. The patient's eyesight was in jepordy because of another doctor not him, and the patient didn't follow his instructions, which may have saved his eyesight. It was case of the lawyer and his client trying to get more money.
                                I can't speak for anyone else, but I've always felt that the appeal of America was you can come here, work hard and get ahead. I've really gotten fed up with attitude that the legal system is some sort of Robin Hood or like winning the Lottery. I know a guy at work who found a spider in his fuit pie, so now he's going to sue the company. He didn't even eat the pie; all Hostess should owe him is another pie. But he's already talking about retiring and how he's going to get 82,000.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X