Response to amethystlady

One of those apologists for the self-styled “Democratic” party in the US wrote:

WTH.? Occupy now sounds like AA…12 Steps? Come On, children, get real! If Romney gets in, you can kiss the Social Security and Medicare that you have been paying for, that I have been paying for and now depend on, then I will make it a point to let the world know it was because “Occupy” threw a little hissy fit in Charlotte. Grow UP!

And I responded:

We can restore Social Security and Medicare once we have expelled the fascists from power. Preventing torture and murder by US officials, and restoring civil liberties, are of more immediate importance. Is your personal comfort more important than the question of whether your government engages in torture and aggressive war or not? (both of those crimes having been prosecuted in the Nürnberger Trials; they’re that important and shocking)

http://wp.me/p23U97-5V Not all political questions are equal

http://wp.me/p23U97-5L All those things we were supposed to avoid by keeping quiet

http://wp.me/p23U97-75 Path Out of Fascism for US Citizens

There is further discussion about this response on Facebook.  Here is a backup copy:

We can restore Social Security and Medicare once we have expelled the fascists from power. Preventing torture and murder by US officials, and restoring civil liberties, are of more immediate importance. Is your personal comfort more important than the question of whether your government engages in torture and aggressive war or not?

http://wp.me/p23U97-7m

Response to amethystlady

1787regime.wordpress.com

One of those apologists for the self-styled “Democratic” party in the US wrote: WTH.? Occupy now sounds like AA…12 Steps? Come On, children, get real! If Romney gets in, you can kiss th…
Unlike ·  · Unfollow Post · Share · September 8 at 9:47am
  • You like this.
  • Steven Catullus Maximus I agree that our focus in both platforms is way too militaristic, and downright evil…but I doubt you’d be so quick to propose letting the net go if it was the only thing keeping you alive and with a roof over your head
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus, thanks for responding. You might be right. I might do the wrong thing under threat of starvation. However, we can still discuss what would be the right thing, and I say that it is to vote for someone other than Repugnicrats. Starve them absolutely of votes. The Libertarians have a candidate, but I like (relatively) the way Stein is talking. Have you followed my links to transcripts to her talks? The longer it takes for US citizens to get rid of the Repugnicrats, the more people shall be killed or tortured. So US citizens should help one another onto the exit path now.
  • Steven Catullus Maximus It’s very true that in the context of an alternative candidate’s platform, that statement makes more sense. Perhaps it is the fear of our economic catastrophe that tempers my view with such pragmatism that I too, insist we elect the lesser evil. Honestly however, I’m more motivated by Gagnon’s quotes of statistics from the NYTimes about our nations’ leading export product and the expansion of our militarism in recent years. Jill Stein’s speculation on why this might be so is enlightening food for thought and discussion, but I fear these deep changes in national direction must take place over time, in increments. Sad, but I believe it to be the case in a putative democracy.
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus, is there any sign that could conceivably come along, that would convince you that the time for voting for evil has passed?
  • Steven Catullus Maximus Bernie Sanders for President, but that’s never going to happen 😦:-( A knowledgeable, viable candidate
  • David Jarosz When the economic collapse occurs, and it’s possible it happens during the next presidential term; What is going to “fix the problem”? A return to Free Market lassie-faire economics, or more status quo, more bigger government, more regulations and policies, problem-reaction-solution?
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus, I don’t understand what you are asking me. I am already convinced that the time for voting for evil has passed. That’s why I am arguing to that effect.
  • William Waugh David Jarosz, thanks for joining the discussion. Are you addressing your question to me? I don’t think anybody is going to repair the problem when the Reaganomic collapse comes. People are going to starve in their billions.
  • David Jarosz The question is open for anyone to answer, I was not directing it to anyone specifically.
  • David Jarosz Also, I didn’t ask who it he right person is. My question is more of a economic philosophical one. I also agree with you that people should be voting 3rd party is this election. We keep voting in the same evil every time. The lessor evil is still evil. If we keep voting for the lessor (same) evil, we are feeding in to the status-quo.
  • William Waugh I think that economically, communities have to think about how to become resilient to whatever unexpected changes (droughts, flooding, fungal infections, . . .) may attack the food supplies. There is a strain of writing about this approach and I have not studied it yet.
  • Steven Catullus Maximus Hello, William, you’ve correctly interpreted my query, however I am still not certain of your answer. You’ve described your view of not “voting for evil” as requiring starving the Repugs for votes. Agreed. I also understood your position to be one of supporting the President’s re-election. We’ve agreed that both GOP and DNC platforms are incomprehensibly militaristic. So, I remain confused as to what voting strategy you’re actually espousing. If I’ve misunderstood you, pls forgive, however a vote for Jill or Glen remains a vote for the GOP ticket in practical terms, as it denies the incumbent much needed support, which to me is the worst possible choice for this November.
  • William Waugh No, I don’t support Mr. Obama’s re-election; he’s a murderer and a torturer. I support Stein’s candidacy. When I wrote “Repugnicrat”, that meant the “Democratic” and Republican parties taken together. I’ll stop using that term; I can see it leads to misunderstanding.http://wp.me/p23U97-5L All those things we were supposed to avoid by keeping quiet, we got in spades.

    ‎1787regime.wordpress.com

    And again, for the last ten years at least, there has been this fear campaign th…See More
  • David Jarosz See, it’s not just me that thinks Obama’s a murderer, liar and a whole list of other evils.
  • Steven Catullus Maximus Well, that’s really too bad. As I’ve said, a vote for an alternate candidate with the sort of visibility and viability of Ms. Stein is, in effect a vote for Romney/Ryan. While vicious, perhaps even joyous militarism thrives in both parties, any vote cast for a candidate other than President Obama falls directly in support of R/R. Rove’s only hope for Romney at present is apathy in the turnout that placed Obama in office in 2008.We’ve seen it many times, and the consequences have been devastating. I see it here. One can posit that either a proper recount in Florida OR the votes Ralph Nadar drew away from Gore would have denied GWB the presidency in 2000, arguably the beginning of some very difficult times for us and the starting point for the battlegrounds you decry. Even Ralph stopped short of saying that Gore=Bush.
  • David Jarosz That’s just propaganda.. ie a “vote for X, is really a vote for Y”. A vote for any of the two major parties and their candidates will, in effect, be an endorsement of prolonged war and all that goes with it (torture, civilian casualties), economic inequality, American hegemony, the suppression of free speech and right to assemble, the continued violation of civil and human rights, indefinate detentions with out trials, and the rapidly accelerated destruction of the environment.
  • Steven Catullus Maximus Sure, David… my personal thoughts and feelings after considerable research, cogitation, and consultation is “just propaganda”. I would accuse you of spouting propaganda, and not really considering what I’ve said, particularly since I’ve openly acknowledged the fact that both parties are militaristic. You also seem to totally ignore the lesson of 2000.
  • Steven Catullus Maximus Furthermore, the principle fact used in defining the Obama administration as militaristic is the growth in the sales of military hardware by the US. In fact, given that the hardware was predominantly purchased by oil rich Persian Gulf states concerned about their oil and gas pipelines, rather than by developing nations as has been the case in the past, and consists of the type of extremely expensive hardware used to create a missile shield over the region doesn’t really indicate a direct corollary to an increase in aggression.
  • Steven Catullus Maximus …and since you don’t appear to read past the first two or three lines, I”ll repeat that, YES, in a two party race, a vote for Z does favor X over Y which is a far more apt metaphor for what you’re trying to say.
  • William Waugh Not only is it propaganda, it’s bad propaganda.
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus, have you followed my link to the partial transcript of Stein where she is arguing why citizens should stop falling for the two-party blackmail?
  • William Waugh Those who vote for Romney or Obama rather than Stein or Johnson are complicit in torture.
  • William Waugh Moreover, the sales of arms do not constitute the only publicly knowable aspect of Obama’s military aggression. As commander of the army, he could have ordered it out of Afghanistan and Iraq a long time ago; Congress could have done nothing about it; the army would have had to obey. But he did not do that. He orders drone aircraft sent to various places to throw bombs. None of this can be justified in morality or law. How is it qualitatively different from what the German officials were tried for in Nürnberg? Or do you think that was just “victor’s justice” and those guys should have been all let go, Steven Catullus Maximus?
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus, you write “… given that the hardware was predominantly purchased by oil rich Persian Gulf states concerned about their oil and gas pipelines, rather than by developing nations as has been the case in the past, and consists of the type of extremely expensive hardware used to create a missile shield over the region doesn’t really indicate a direct corollary to an increase in aggression.” Yes, that’s exactly what it indicates! The political/economic faction that controls the “Democratic” and Republican parties, supports governments in those Persian-Gulf states, which governments, to varying degrees, represent said faction’s interest rather than the interests of the people who live in those countries. So add weaponry to control, and what happens in effect is proxy war.
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus, you write “Well, that’s really too bad.” And from the context, it looks as though when you wrote that, you did so in response to our friend here David Jarosz saying “See, it’s not just me that thinks Obama’s a murderer, liar and a whole list of other evils.” Is that what you were saying is too bad? If so, is it because you think Mr. Obama is not a murderer? Do you think he is not a torturer? Do you think he does not lie? Or do you think Obama is all those things but think things would go better if David Jarosz and I didn’t dwell on those characteristics of Mr. Obama?
  • Steven Catullus Maximus OK, I see. Now the claws come out. Pacifists are never more vile nor violent than in “polite” conversation about their beliefs. Firstly, aren’t your fingers tired of typing all three of my names each time you address me. Oh, I see, you’d rather keep a distance than comfort. Apparently I’ve misunderstood the tone of our discussion. PARTICULARLY when you drag in Nuremberg, suggesting that I would advocate defending our current President on some fictitious grounds of “victors justice”! Where have I said anything like that? You’re just being rude on so many levels. You suggest that Obama should have gotten us out of Iraq…gee, I thought we were. The President also has recently given a 2014 deadline for abandoning Afghanistan. I’m still waiting for the Hague to catch up with the 9 criminals from the last administration, yet you’re advocating positions that will offer comfort and aid to their allies and fellow travelers. In your criticism of my characterization of the construction of a missile defense shield, you use some bogus mathematical construct to say that adding “weaponry to control…is proxy war” You know very well, that suppression of indigenous peoples is done with the cruelest of hand to hand combat weapons, e.g. auto rifles, mines, armored vehicles, not planes, anti-aircraft and anti-missile missiles, the type of hardware actually sold. It’s a matter of degree and intention. My comment, “Well, that’s really too bad” was directed at you for advocating what I consider to be throwing away your franchise. Which brings me back to the only point I’ve ever wanted to make, and away from “defender of evil” which you keep trying me out for. That being that things will go better if this nation’s middle class, intelligentia and educated class remain healthy, and not subject to suppression by home grown fascists. I advocate freedom for all classes, of course, but those just listed will the first to go. I don’t understand your glossy statements of “bad propaganda” nor dismissal of “a vote for Z not X, is a vote for Y” metaphor so why not address my persistent and only question for you, which is how can your disagree with the logic that in a two person race, a vote for a third person denies the least objectionable candidate a vote. Even Ralph Nader after 2000 said that Gore does not =Bush. I repeat, Obama does not equal Romney. Not by a long shot, so all things are not equal. Both are not as militaristically dangerous. The people who lied this nation into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are strangely absent from the landscape of political discussion. Any American citizen who believes in democracy, believes in civil rights, believes in women’s rights, and hopes for government control of usury, economic warfare, and greed has to recognize the importance of this election. This is not a poly sci debate class, you win no points and you don’t get laid no matter how attractive your alternate candidate’s position is. Only if your candidate stops the GOP machine! Can yours do that without imploding the nation? Given your stated expectation of the Reaganomics financial debacle, I would suggest not. I would suggest not, period.
  • William Waugh Dear Steven,

    I intend to respond to only a portion of your letter at this time. I think I need to let some of what you said pickle in my mind for a while.

    In regard to my use of your name, it hasn’t been clear to me whether Facebook would alert you to my having responded if I didn’t use your full name. I have sometimes tried to use a different tool, Twitter, and I think that has confused me as to how the notifications work.

    I have not had to retype the letters of your name one by one, because I use the “copy” and “paste” facilities.

    I seem to have failed to write clearly when I referenced that city in Germany where they had the famous trials. I will try to make it clear. I did not mean any insult to you. The charges at Nürnberg (I know that English speakers generally write, and say, Nuremberg, and I don’t criticize your doing so, but there is just something in my mind that rebels at the idea of calling a city differently than the way the people who live there do) included:
    1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace;
    2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace;
    3. War crimes; and finally,
    4. Crimes against humanity.
    (more to come)
  • William Waugh I am not in favor of the death penalty, but the fact that the judges in the Nürnberg trials ordered it for several convicts (and those orders were carried out) and sent others to prison for decades demonstrates that in their view the charges were serious. The principles under which the victors said the trials would operate, together with the history of the trials, brings forth certain notions that one could agree with or not:

    – The notion that unprovoked war is itself a crime, and should be treated as a crime (investigated, tried).

    – The notion that “I was only following orders” is no excuse.

    When I look back to the time I was taught history and civics in school, I think the general attitude expressed by the books and the teachers was of agreement with those principles. On the other hand, I have heard of a critique to the effect that the victors of WWII made up the “crimes” after the fact. I don’t have a clue where you stand on these questions, Catuli.

    My position is that they are crimes and that Mr. Obama has engaged in them.

    “You suggest that Obama should have gotten us out of Iraq…gee, I thought we were.”

    I don’t know whom you mean by “we”; are you in the military? I understand that the US embassy in Baghdad is one of the largest embassies in the world and that there are significant military there. Also there is a prison at Baghram air base that is run by US soldiers. Moreover the head of state is essentially a puppet and his non-removal constitutes evidence of significant ongoing US influence.

    “The President also has recently given a 2014 deadline for abandoning Afghanistan.”

    A peace president would not have sent US personnel to Afghanistan, and if any were there at the start of the presidents term, the president would have removed them without delay.

    The US is party to the UN charter as a treaty. The UN documents specify what an aggrieved state party can do and in what order, in response to alleged aggressive action by other countries. The story from US officials to explain the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan is that these have something to do with the plane crashes of 2001-09-11. Those were crimes and should have been investigated as such and the evidence should have been followed wheresoever it might have led. That is not what happened. There was no investigation so far as publicly known evidence points to any. The National Transportation Safety Board did not fill its usual role, which should have been the first step. If it had, its web site would so indicate. Citizens have no particular reason to think any particular persons did 9-11 because the evidence has all been covered up by the Bush administration. Bush said it was planned by US agent Osama bin Laden, who was known to be in Afghanistan, which was ruled by the Talibaan (self-described religious students). If the Bush administration really had had evidence against bin Laden, they could have presented it to the government of Afghanistan and said please turn the suspect over to us for trial. The Bush administration did not present such evidence. Therefore, there is no reason a citizen should believe any of the administration’s story. The wars are unjustified. They are crimes under the principles established at Nürnberg. They were carried out for the purpose of regional control and the control of energy deposits, as a step in the US’ economic competition with China. 9-11 was only used as a pretext for the wars. This is all criminal, and Obama has continued it, in spades.
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus, recently I received a notification on Facebook that another person had referred to me in a comment. I use your full name to try to invoke that mechanism.

    “I’m still waiting for the Hague to catch up with the 9 criminals from the last administration,”

    WHY ARE YOU WAITING? It is your job as a US citizen to vote for a presidential candidate who might direct the US Justice Dept. to investigate and prosecute those crimes. I admit that my candidate hasn’t promised to do that. But your candidate has criminally protected the criminals from prosecution, and has joined in on and expanded the criminal behavior and the grab of dictatorial power. At least Dr. Stein doesn’t have a criminal record that I know about. Maybe she will order investigations, especially if the public clamors for them. She and the Greens don’t take corporate money, so there is much more reason to expect her to act in the public interest. So vote and clamor. The US is not a member of the ICC, so at least some of the international mechanisms are unlikely ever to be used to catch US officials (although Spain possibly could make an issue of it). So why aren’t you using your political power toward bringing about justice through the mechanisms you can affect, namely the US Justice Dept. reporting to a president for whom you have a portion of a vote?

    In regard to the selling of heavy weapons of war to Saudi kings and other compradors in the region, as opposed to selling them small arms, I can somewhat see your point in that heavy weapons are usually not used for oppression of political expression inside a given country. However, the supply of heavy weapons by your government and mine (the US government) to factions abroad can’t be a good thing. They can use those weapons against for example Iran, as happened in the West-supported Iran-Iraq war, which produced a terrible toll of casualties including the effects of poison gas supplied from Germany (Deutschland).
  • Steven Catullus Maximus Hi William, As “in” to tracking us as FB is, I don’t think that works. They’ll notify you if I talk about you and we’re friended, but otherwise, I suspect I’m free to say whatever I want about you without you knowing. That said, let me assure that I have no interest in saying anything but positive comments about you and your commitments, other than those I present to you. Briefly, I’ll state that the basis for our disagreement seems to lay solely in your belief that a vote for Jill Stein could actually accomplish any of your admittedly laudable goals…they can only in so much as they move the dialogue of the need for such change forward. Again, a laudable goal. So much so that I might well endorse it myself, were we not facing such a critical election among two candidates funded by unbeatable forces. If we are to expend our energies fighting against the most pernicious powers that endanger us at the moment, we should be striking out against oligarchy. Also a goal which will not be immediately accomplished by either of our positions. Thus, I have to advocate the one candidate I believe is most likely to allow us to have this conversation again in a few years. and yes, I have read all of your posts on this thread, whether directed to me, or not. I have also received notice of each comment you’ve posted here. Never elsewhere, though we are connected on any posts on this page in which we share membership.
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus, please do not overlook the installments I posted above without your full name.

    You write in response to me, “yet you’re advocating positions that will offer comfort and aid to their allies and fellow travelers.” (speaking of the war criminals in the G. W. Bush administration).

    No, I’m not. Game theory might predict such a bad outcome from a few people following my advice, but game theory does not the offer the right set of categories to use for achieving a moral understanding of the current situation. The allies and fellow travelers in fact include Mr. Obama for whom you recommend a vote. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama. A vote for Stein is a vote for Stein. Romney will not necessarily receive the plurality; we won’t know until the votes are counted including those from the people who are more in agreement with Stein than they are with any other candidate. If people (including your future, voting self) follow the advice you have given up to now in this thread of discussion, the same logic will apply every election year, and the “Democratic” party and Republican party will continue their dance to the right, until we have Mussolini and Hitler. That is the direction your advice is taking us US voters, if we follow it. My advice, on the other hand, is for US voters who want peace and justice to stand up on our hind legs for a change, and vote for what we believe in, want, and need. Then we can see who wins the election; we can’t know before trying.

    I continue to write installments before reading your responses today and I will indicate when I have finished responding to your long message.
  • Steven Catullus Maximus You will know if you follow the examples of recent electoral history as I have admonished you to do. What more poignant statement supporting this could you ask for than the “near admission” of Ralph that he might’ve contributed to a bad outcome in 2000? He did and we all know it.
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus, returning for a moment to the subject of the supply of weapons from the US (which I would advocate an embargo on, beyond maybe four rifles or shotguns per person traveling abroad), you talk about the ratio of heavy weapons of war to small arms. But I’m sure there are still plenty of small arms being supplied by our political opponents.

    You responded to me by saying “In your criticism of my characterization of the construction of a missile defense shield, you use some bogus mathematical construct to say that adding ‘weaponry to control…is proxy war'”.

    I don’t see why you see that as bogus; let me make an analogy between on the one hand, a situation among persons, and on another, a situation among large and powerful collectives. If for example I hire you to kill some Mr. Smith (say) and you do so, then in US law, you and I are both held as guilty, and that is the way it should be. As the person putting out the contract, I am guilty because I gave you an incentive to do as I commanded, to kill Smith. This hypothetical illustrates the moral view that I assert is appropriate for you and me to take as regards the situation between the US and its server (I don’t know why so many people exactly reverse the uses of “client” and “server”) forces including the Saudi royals and the governments of the other Middle-East countries who cooperate with the US against regional interests, including also the governments of Yemen and Bahrain, countries that host US military forces. Since the political factions that actually run the US government today via their instruments the Republican and “Democratic” parties have established and maintain influence in those server governments and can often convince them to obey requests and commands, said factions are more able to make war than they would with less in the way of armaments of whatever size being in the hands of said server governments, who act in effect as agents for the aforesaid political faction my opponents and the enemies of all humankind.

    Thou wrotest: “My comment, ‘Well, that’s really too bad’ was directed at you for advocating what I consider to be throwing away your franchise.”

    You err. I advocate *utilizing* our franchise (yours and mine and that of your and my readers who hold US citizenship, if any) to push toward justice and a democratic republic. Without that standing-on-hind-legs as I mentioned above, and for so long as they/we give in to “good cop, bad cop” or the prisoner’s dilemma trick, the pro-peace, pro-justice political factions in the US shall not bring about the “significant and profound change in American life and policy” that Dr. King called for in his “Beyond Vietnam” speech.https://1787regime.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/beyond-vietnam/

    You go on, …”things will go better if this nation’s middle class, intelligentsia and educated class remain healthy, and not subject to suppression by home grown fascists.”

    Mr. Obama’s administration has been coordinating with local police in several major cities on the suppression of protests. The Republicans and “Democrats” in Congress have passed a law that makes a felony out of protesting in a zone designated in secret. I don’t know whether you consider the protesters to be intelligentsia, but whoever you mean, they can’t be far behind. Remember Martin Niemöller.

    In regard to the classification of propaganda, I offer two dimensions, a good/bad dimension and a true/false dimension. Propaganda is communication that is broadcast for a political purpose. Good propaganda is propaganda that is likely to lead people to do what they ought to do. Bad propaganda leads people to do what they ought not to do. “Ought” means “in accord with the values of William Waugh” (or whoever is speaking). True propaganda is propaganda whose assertions and claims are in accord with the actual state of things in the world. False propaganda is propaganda that is not true propaganda. All four combinations are theoretically possible. Someone who believes honesty to be the best policy (as I generally do) would expect that the set of false and good propaganda to be empty. And yes I find it so. But the set of true and bad propaganda is not empty. The statement may be factual, but without adequate context, it may tend to lead to bad action. And many political statements are kept short, in recognition that attention span of readers is costly and finite.

    Your repetition that “a vote for Stein is a vote for Romney” and that the race is “two-person” are bad propaganda, and I say they are false propaganda but that might be a matter of viewpoint. A vote for Stein is a vote for Stein. The race is not limited to two candidates; Stein is on the ballot in States containing 80-something percent of the population; I don’t know in how many states a vote for Johnson would have an effect different from that of voting an empty ballot.

    These messages of yours constitute bad propaganda because they urge the listener to vote for Obama, for torture, and for dictatorship. Let us not be led around by this ring in our noses of political blackmail that says we have to follow game theory. If Obama wins, it is your fault for not voting for Stein, for whom you ought to vote. A vote for Obama is a vote for torture and dictatorship. A vote for Stein is a vote for a democratic republic. If Romney wins, it is the fault of those who voted for Romney. Even in the event that Romney wins, the more votes that are tallied for Stein, the stronger in the political debate will ring the message that some of us have had enough of this crap and we want a democratic republic and we want to end aggressive war by our government, a crime according to every consideration of ethics as well as the Nürnberger trials.

    “I repeat, Obama does not equal Romney.”

    Neither does Mussolini equal Hitler, but that is no reason to vote for them.

    “The people who lied this nation into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are strangely absent from the landscape of political discussion.”

    No, their manifestation today is very present in the discussion and that manifestation consists of Obama’s friendship with Bibi and all the discussion about whether the US can or cannot tolerate an Iran armed with the atomic bomb when they say nothing about the Netherlands, Brazil, or Germany, all of which are enriching uranium. The hands pulling the strings of Romney and Obama want a war between Iran and USrael/NATO in order to receive the money for building the weapons for it and in order to create a stronger military position toward thwarting China economically. So they repeat the lie of weapons of mass destruction to try to stir up various parties into supporting the war they want. So the lies are not absent from the landscape of political discussion; they are being told again with only the one change of an “N” filled in where the “Q” used to be on the end of “IRA_”.

    “Any American citizen who believes in democracy, believes in civil rights, believes in women’s rights, and hopes for government control of usury, economic warfare, and greed has to recognize the importance of this election.”

    This is not a poly sci debate class, you win no points and you don’t get laid no matter how attractive your alternate candidate’s position is. Only if your candidate stops the GOP machine! Can yours do that without imploding the nation?”

    ‎1787regime.wordpress.com

    I keep wanting to make sure all of you have read or heard Dr. Martin Luther King…See More
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus “Any American citizen who believes in democracy, believes in civil rights, believes in women’s rights, and hopes for government control of usury, economic warfare, and greed has to recognize the importance of this election.”

    I am mostly in agreement with you on that, although I think “greed” is a misemphasis in that the cause of the effects that people attribute to “greed” is the structure of the system, in that it rewards profit and fosters and empowers composite intelligences that follow profit as the sole reward signal.

    Actually there is a class of people who believe in the things you mention there but don’t think anything can be achieved in the election on the grounds that the electoral system is rotten. My position is not exactly the same as theirs, because I see a hope in people being able to convince each other to vote their values and needs.”

    “This is not a poly sci debate class, you win no points and you don’t get laid no matter how attractive your alternate candidate’s position is.”

    I agree.

    “Only if your candidate stops the GOP machine! Can yours do that without imploding the nation?”

    Yes, with your help.

    This concludes my reply to your message of September 10 at 6:21pm.
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus, I have to modify something I just posted. I expressed full agreement with your “Only if your candidate stops the GOP machine!”. As I mentioned farther up, if Romney wins this time, a high vote count for Stein will bring her position and qualification to the attention of more US residents than know about it now, and will help spread the idea that in future elections at all levels of government the voters don’t have to fall for the “Democrats” and Republicans as “good cop, bad cop”, so every vote for Stein goes toward improving the situation in the long run. And again, the advice you offer is not even an increment toward victory; you lay out no path to victory but I do.
  • William Waugh Please say you won’t object to my copying this whole conversation to my blog.
  • Steven Catullus Maximus Assuming that you meant to the page where I suggested it belonged, no, I have no objection. I would object to use of our discourse on any other site unless copied in its entirety. No editing, whatsoever.
  • William Waugh Catuli, I can understand that you might be tired of arguing with me by now, but otherwise, for clarity, I would like to know whether you judge that unprovoked discharge of weapons across international borders by government officials is a crime and should be investigated and prosecuted.
  • William Waugh My father used to say that anything could be said without resort to metaphors, analogies, or parables. Since you don’t like the analogy to Hitler and Mussolini I made in response to your point that there is a difference between Rmoney and The President, I will explain my point in more straightforward language than I used before. You make the point that there is a difference between them, but my response is that just because there is a difference between them, that is not sufficient reason to vote for either.
  • William Waugh In regard to notifications, my concern was that you would be notified when I add to the argument, not that I would be notified should you try to talk about me behind my back. I used your full name to make sure FB would notify you. But I suppose it is still notifying you because you contributed to the same thread.
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus, why do you think that The President (Obama) will preserve Social Security and Medicare?
  • Steven Catullus Maximus Why do think The President (I know who he is), won’t? He, his administration, the entire DNC and many notable Senators and Representatives who caucus with them have pledged not to. They clearly and plainly state, as frequently as yesterday’s Senate action, that both are self funded by employee/employer payroll deductions and place no demands upon public funds, and that they should not be discontinued nor modified in any way.
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus, because Mr. Obama has pretended and lied before. Dishonest people can’t be expected to follow the intentions that they let on that they have.
  • William Waugh I’ll do this in the style of the “Democratic” and “Republican” parties:

    All in favor of appending this discussion to the end ofhttp://wp.me/p23U97-7m, signify by saying “aye”.

    “Aye!”

    All those opposed, “no”.

    “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!”

    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus, do you judge that unprovoked discharge of weapons across international borders by government officials is a crime and should be investigated and prosecuted?
  • Steven Catullus Maximus Nay, Once again, a totally unrealistic approach to saving Medicare/SS. Obama is the best, most realistic choice. Also, William, you seem to have attached the “one of those apologists for the self-styled “Democratic”….quote to my picon. NOT my statement and a criticism I would not make of the Occupy movement. Kindly remove this fallacious presentation. Also, again, I am opposed to appending the 1873 discussion, so to clarify, I vote “NO”.
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus: Facebook picked the icon to put in this scroll. OK, I’ll hit the “remove preview”; that will take care of its presence here.

    Was your “nay” a response to my question about whether you find (as a judgment on moral values) that international aggression is a crime that should be investigated and prosecuted?
  • William Waugh Are the accusations true or false ones? Do the administrators of this page care whether they are true or false?
  • William Waugh David Yennior, does the name of this page start with “Occupy”?
  • Steven Catullus Maximus Mr. Waugh, a couple points of order which I hope will help to dispell some of your misconceptions. Under the headline tab, “About” which would lead one to infer that an explanation of the group’s purpose might lay within, the administrator offers thisenlightenment, should you care to avail yourself of it; “I just created this new group OCCUPY THE VOTING BOOTH IN 2012 to address ways to overcome ALEC’s voter suppression laws around the country. Please join the cause. We must get out the vote.” Believing that to rather clearly define the purpose, your attempt to malleate the groups purpose through contortions of the “Occupy” phenomenon would seem to be rather weak gruel at best, inconsistent workmanship crafted by a wordsmith impoverished for a forum and fascinated by the ability to manipulate other’s comments through fallacious editorial manipulation of the cogent comments of others. You have consistently done so with my own, which in your case was a very unlikely choice for the type of shenanigans you’ve engaged in. May I point out what you apparently unaware of, that being the fact that I have earned my living as an editor, chiefly, though not exclusively of broadcast material. Thus, I can readily recognize the removal of so little as a mere exhalation of breath, far more readily an attempt to append completely unrelated material into commentary which I was kind enough to engage in with you. I was first amused by your constant attempts to change the topic when presented with arguments to which you had no logical response, until I was finally alerted and warned of your intentions by your quaint attempt to legitimize your theft of my intellectual property when you stated that you “trusted that I would not mind if your editorialized” my content and moved it. Your implication being that it would be moved among different threads within the Occupy the Voting Booth 2012 pages. You clear intention, even after I warned you against doing such by stating that I “had no objection” provided that you did not edit one word nor used our exchanges from these pages in any other forum. You had immediately put me on notice that you intended to plagiarize and ineffectually attempt to manipulate my statements as being supportive of your own, if not directly so, then by contrast. You have done so. Your incorrect assumption that your frequent insertion of crude attempts to alert the reader that you’ve “edited” my content serves you no legal protection whatsoever. The simple omission of my statements context negates any such attempt, William. Thus, I will close by once again pointing out that my “Nay” was in answer to the query which was in last week’s post but has now been “edited” from inclusion in your revisionary presentation. You asked if I agreed that inclusion of our exchange regarding the validity of removing Social Security and Medicare was not justified in view of the promise by Jill Stein that those pre-paid annuities could be simply removed from our public policy and then renewed once Ms. Stein wins the current Presidential election. Foremost, as I’ve contended all along, Ms. Stein unfortunately stands no chance whatsoever of winning the election. Only the most deluded optimist would believe so. Secondly, the question posited by your post has been the same one I’ve addressed here consistently. that being the efficacy and justifiability of the proposed destruction of our federal insurance program sold to the public and paid for by that public through regular and not inexpensive deductions from their wages, totally unconnected in any way to income tax deductions. You’ve tried to change the topic of justification to that of militaristic excess, the sales of which is a function of American corporate industrialists, not that of the President under any administration, to some convoluted argument involving the actions taken after WWII against the German war machine and their allies. I contend, quite emphatically that Nurnberg has no bearing on the just and due benefits of Social Security and Medicare.
  • William Waugh I have not edited one word of your writing, nor did I threaten to, Steven Catullus Maximus.
  • William Waugh I also stand in opposition to the sorts of electoral conditions that permit ALEC or similar phenomena to have any effect.
  • William Waugh My mention of an edit in my post is the edit in which I appended our conversation, unedited, to the material I had posted earlier.
  • William Waugh Do you object to our conversation being posted verbatim anywhere other than Facebook?
  • William Waugh The page is called “Occupy the Voting Booth”. When I first saw that title, I inferred from that that title, that the page must be about using the electoral process to trigger radical change to the US political system, in contrast to using it to endorse the current system as represented by Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney and the parties who nominated them. That is why I posted here a link to my argument against that of a person who said that it is necessary to vote for Mr. Obama because of the risk that otherwise Mr. Romney would win and take apart Social Security and Medicare (both of which I am strongly in favor of their not being taken apart). That’s why I posted here. Two or three people responded to me and the conversation continued from there.
  • William Waugh My argument is about priorities. I am saying that it is worth taking risks in order to bring an end to certain series of shocking crimes by US officials in the course of their office, and in order to institute a more democratic type of republic, one in which the “you’d better vote for A or else B will be elected, and you wouldn’t want that” blackmail will be defanged. Once such a democratic republic is in place, those citizens who want to argue policy will find more sympathetic ears because their listeners will have reason to believe that their votes count. I’m saying it’s hard to argue policy when ones listeners think they have no influence over policy.

    And incidentally I think it is ironic that a supporter of Obama’s re-election would speak of claws coming out. Verbal claws in a conversation can’t be any worse than shrapnel in an aerial bombing, or the actual claws of dogs used in threatening captives by the G. W. Bush administration whose members are protected from investigation or prosecution by Mr. Obama.
  • Steven Catullus Maximus Yes, William. I do object and said as much at the time you asked for my permission. Another of your “not so clever” editorial removals from these pages. I am accustomed to being paid for my words, thus when you asked if I objected to your moving our exchange to other locations, I specifically said that I would object unless you were to include all dialogue in context, without editing of any kind. Surely, you noted the stipulation, since you did remove it from the thread of that post. I would also suggest, William, that you did not infer what you say you did from this page title, rather you implied it as nothing factual was presented to give you that derived opinion. Of course, you’re free to do so. It is just hard to back up that position.
  • William Waugh Steven Catullus Maximus, so will your objection go away if I make sure to include the whole conversation, even the meta-discussion parts?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s