Gingrich: four more wars

[TheLibertarian]

The Grinch has lost his mind.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich last week criticized the United States for not engaging more forcefully with other countries besides Iraq that President Georgw W. Bush had identified as the "Axis of Evil."

"I believe he was right but in fact could not operationalize what he said," Gingrich said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. "That is, there was an Axis of Evil, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Well we're one out of three. And people ought to think about that. If Bush was right in January of 2002 -- and by the way virtually the entire Congress gave him a standing ovation when he said it -- then why is it that the other two parts of the Axis of Evil are still visibly, cheerfully making nuclear weapons? And it's because we've stood at brink, looked over and thought, 'too big a problem.'"

Typically I'd be loathe to copy-paste from a leftist website like HuffPo, but it's more than appropriate here. It's time we boot these big-spending chickenhawk neo-cons out of office before they destroy civilization in their hubris. Gingrich, Palin and their Reaganite clones ought to go the way of Obama and the rest of the FDR-lite crowd and gently into that good night.

[TheLibertarian]

What domestic tyranny?

The PATRIOT Act, though it's but one example of the Statist, big-government ideas that have infested the Republican Party.

So what's more important to you. Appropriating billions of dollars to spend on Pork Barrell Projects, resulting in Billions of dollars in government waste, or spending to provide for the security or the nation and maintaing a well regulated militia.

Golly gee! It... it almost looks like military spending is pork-barrel spending! I mean, paying for a military base in Florida certainly helps the local economy, doesn't it?

You know, something the Constitution calls for.

Right. A "well-regulated militia". Not a professional military. Not a national military. Not a centralized military. A militia of civilian volunteers. That's exactly what I want to see us return to.

I oppose any form of tyranny at home and abroad. Does Gingrick saying that we need to defeat evil mean that he's pro government tyranny? Now, I realize the pacifism exists abundantly in Libertarian and Liberal circles and they think if we seclude ourselves from the rest of the world all would be well.

You love tyranny, at home and abroad. You have combined Christian theocracy with a belief in the neo-con/Trotskyist idea of world revolution. You wish to impose your views on all the world by force. You are not a conservative.

So then, TheLibertarian, if you're a true non-interventionist then you'll want to pull us out of the UN then, yes? Tell the UN to find another place to stay, stop funding the UN and stop getting involved with EU economics.

Absolutely. I also believe we ought to pull out of Israel, stop funding them and stop getting involved with their economics.

[chris_brown207]

The same type of persecution of Christians is going on all over the Islamic world, Saudi, of course Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Inodonesia (suposedly moderate), and many others, and I don't mean isolated extremist incidents, I mean persecution by government policy. See persecution.org and barnabasfund.org

So then we agree that there are muslim extremists all over the world... However, I still do not see how this proves that the majority of the Afghanistan people support the cries for death of these Christian converts. Should I also assume that you support health care reform seeing as how the majority of your elected leaders voted for it?

The mafia is still a very pervasive force in Italy. I remember being on a tour bus in Pisa, when the driver told us he has to pay to fees - one to the local government, and one to the mafia - in order to park his bus. The mafia is so pervasive in some areas, it is almost a third arm of the government...

However, should we take from this that the majority of the populace are members of the mafia (or even supporters of it)? Most of the Italian people I spoke with have just come to accept it as a fact of life - but one that they would never dare to speak out about.

It appears that EoE is making assumptions about ALL the people of the middle east based upon those who make the best news headlines and are heard the loudest.

EoE's belief that equal attention and troop levels wouldn't have made an impact is just as speculative if not more so. It is also, IMHO, a little hypocritical, seeing as how he now points the finger at how extreme Afghanistan still is, and how much trouble there still is to be found there.

This is the sports equivalent of putting a football team on the field with proper gear but only 1/3 of a normal number of players. Then, when they start having trouble, pointing your finger and saying "See, we just can't beat that other team - they are too strong, their methods are too harsh, and they are just too imbedded in their side of the field".

(Wasn't that also a summary of EoE's argument for why we lost the Vietnam War - underfunding, undermanning, and a lack of support?)

Different situation. South Vietnam was doing well until they had the rug pulled out from under them by the new Democratic Congress. At that time we had no troops dying in combat. I can see arguments for both staying in Afghanistan and leaving, but for me leaving makes more sense. If the Taliban did return and harbored terrorist training camps that threatened us as they did pre-9/11, why not just obliterate them with a bunch of Fat Boy bombs? Surely with our drones and satelilite cabability we could keep a good eye on them, and I'm not so sure the Taliban would be so stupid to try that again anyway. The fact they would be oppressing the Afgan people would be regrettable, but it is not the interest of the US. To some degree such oppression is going on all over the Muslim world. Changing such a stituation would be up to the Afghan people, not us.

There are certainly people who feel that walking away from Afghanistan is tantamount to walking away from Vietnam.

I am not so idyllic to think that Afghanistan will ever be perfect. Creating a plan that will produce results in which we can declare "Victory" is as shortsighted as believing one can take a fine crystal chandelier that fell and shattered on the ground - and super glue it with such precision that one day you will be able to declare it "good as new".

However, we absolutely owe it to ourselves to stay until we have at least a minimum of success in that region. There is a good possibility that we will be able to achieve a small level of security and stabilization - but only if we dedicate more forces, more time, and more money. This is our Vietnam, and our opportunity to finish what we started. Iraq, in my opinion, was a distraction, and a conflict of interest. Afghanistan is where the true battle is. It is just as symbolic as it is a tactical necessity. This is where the terrorists who hit us had the freedom to train, this was where Osama had his headquarters, this is where our war started.

One thing that we guarantee is that we embolden those "extremist" elements if we back out now - just as the Russians did before us.

(And as for EoE's idea of remote monitoring and striking - that would probably be just as productive as Clinton's OTH cruise missile retaliations on Afghanistan where during his presidency. The Taliban have massive and elaborate cave facilities, and can easily build news ones to shield their activities.)

[East of Eden]

Perhaps, but if you do not understand why those bad choices were made, you will never be able to effectively prevent crime. Much of crime is caused by poverty and a lack of education, which creates negative psychological effects such as desperation, learned helplessness, lack of focus on consequences and the future, etc. A lot of crime is also caused by mental illness, such as depression, addiction, and obsessive compulsion. Some of these illnesses are untreatable, such as psycopathy, but others like depression can be addressed.

If you target the source of bad decisions you will be much more effective than merely punishing the symptom. Society does not benefit by ignoring those causes.

Since this is a religion forum, I'll offer my solution: Salvation through Jesus Christ. Christian prison ministries have done wonders.

Then why is the recidivism among Christian convicts so high?

I would say.. that is totally and utter nonsense. You see, one thing you have to understand is that prison convicts are deceitful. They will profess anything if it gets them out sooner.

These people would disagree with you.

http://www.prisonfellowship.org/pf-stor ... fe-stories

[Goat]

Perhaps, but if you do not understand why those bad choices were made, you will never be able to effectively prevent crime. Much of crime is caused by poverty and a lack of education, which creates negative psychological effects such as desperation, learned helplessness, lack of focus on consequences and the future, etc. A lot of crime is also caused by mental illness, such as depression, addiction, and obsessive compulsion. Some of these illnesses are untreatable, such as psycopathy, but others like depression can be addressed.

If you target the source of bad decisions you will be much more effective than merely punishing the symptom. Society does not benefit by ignoring those causes.

Since this is a religion forum, I'll offer my solution: Salvation through Jesus Christ. Christian prison ministries have done wonders.

Then why is the recidivism among Christian convicts so high?

I would say.. that is totally and utter nonsense. You see, one thing you have to understand is that prison convicts are deceitful. They will profess anything if it gets them out sooner.

These people would disagree with you.

http://www.prisonfellowship.org/pf-stor ... fe-stories

I am sure they will.. Of course, the ones in prison will agree.. it's what happens after they get out that is important. The ones in prison will say they have been 'transformed', so they get out earlier.

They get back on the street, and get back into their old ways, and viola, they are back in prison, to be 'transformed' all over again.

[WinePusher]

Golly gee! It... it almost looks like military spending is pork-barrel spending! I mean, paying for a military base in Florida certainly helps the local economy, doesn't it?

Do you know what the term "pork barrell spending" refers to? It's a term for tax payer money going to projects of individual representatives and senators, you know, like the entire "stimulus" package.

If you think that military spending is equivalent to "pork barrell spending" then you clearly don't understand the word. BTW, maybe you missed it but we're in a war right now. Either we fight to win or we get out, we don't do what your president has done and committ minimal troops and set an articial timeline.

You know, something the Constitution calls for.

Right. A "well-regulated militia". Not a professional military. Not a national military. Not a centralized military. A militia of civilian volunteers. That's exactly what I want to see us return to.

Right, you want to see this nation lose it's entire power and influence in the world and be defenseless. Thank you for being so blunt about liberal dogma.

You love tyranny, at home and abroad. You have combined Christian theocracy with a belief in the neo-con/Trotskyist idea of world revolution. You wish to impose your views on all the world by force. You are not a conservative.

Gosh, ya know, you've been warned oh so many times about these types of posts. I guess some never learn.

So then, TheLibertarian, if you're a true non-interventionist then you'll want to pull us out of the UN then, yes? Tell the UN to find another place to stay, stop funding the UN and stop getting involved with EU economics.

Absolutely. I also believe we ought to pull out of Israel, stop funding them and stop getting involved with their economics.

Your DODGE of my intial question will not go unnoticed and says much about your credibility. Should we pull out of the UN?

Answers: 1) Yes/ 2) No/ 3) I don't want to answer because I will contradict myself.

[East of Eden]

Perhaps, but if you do not understand why those bad choices were made, you will never be able to effectively prevent crime. Much of crime is caused by poverty and a lack of education, which creates negative psychological effects such as desperation, learned helplessness, lack of focus on consequences and the future, etc. A lot of crime is also caused by mental illness, such as depression, addiction, and obsessive compulsion. Some of these illnesses are untreatable, such as psycopathy, but others like depression can be addressed.

If you target the source of bad decisions you will be much more effective than merely punishing the symptom. Society does not benefit by ignoring those causes.

Since this is a religion forum, I'll offer my solution: Salvation through Jesus Christ. Christian prison ministries have done wonders.

Then why is the recidivism among Christian convicts so high?

I would say.. that is totally and utter nonsense. You see, one thing you have to understand is that prison convicts are deceitful. They will profess anything if it gets them out sooner.

These people would disagree with you.

http://www.prisonfellowship.org/pf-stor ... fe-stories

I am sure they will.. Of course, the ones in prison will agree.. it's what happens after they get out that is important. The ones in prison will say they have been 'transformed', so they get out earlier.

They get back on the street, and get back into their old ways, and viola, they are back in prison, to be 'transformed' all over again.

I think you just pulled that out of your head because you want it to be true. According to this Wikipedia post about Charles Colson's prison ministry, recidivism was cut by almost two-thirds for prisoners who completed a faith-based course:

"On June 18, 2003, Colson was invited by President George W. Bush to the White House to present results of a scientific study on the faith-based initiative, InnerChange, at the Carol Vance Unit (originally named the Jester II Unit) prison facility of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Fort Bend County, Texas. Colson led a small group that includes Dr. Byron Johnson of the University of Pennsylvania, who was the principal researcher of the InnerChange study, a few staff members of Prison Fellowship and three InnerChange graduates to the meeting. In the presentation, Dr. Johnson explained that 171 participants in the InnerChange program were compared to a matched group of 1,754 inmates from the prison's general population. The study found that only 8 percent of InnerChange graduates, as opposed to 20.3 percent of inmates in the matched comparison group, became offenders again in a two-year period. In other words, the recidivism rate was cut by almost two-thirds for those who complete the faith-based program. Those who are dismissed for disciplinary reasons or who drop out voluntarily, or those who are paroled before completion, have a comparable rate of rearrest and incarceration."

[Goat]

Perhaps, but if you do not understand why those bad choices were made, you will never be able to effectively prevent crime. Much of crime is caused by poverty and a lack of education, which creates negative psychological effects such as desperation, learned helplessness, lack of focus on consequences and the future, etc. A lot of crime is also caused by mental illness, such as depression, addiction, and obsessive compulsion. Some of these illnesses are untreatable, such as psycopathy, but others like depression can be addressed.

If you target the source of bad decisions you will be much more effective than merely punishing the symptom. Society does not benefit by ignoring those causes.

Since this is a religion forum, I'll offer my solution: Salvation through Jesus Christ. Christian prison ministries have done wonders.

Then why is the recidivism among Christian convicts so high?

I would say.. that is totally and utter nonsense. You see, one thing you have to understand is that prison convicts are deceitful. They will profess anything if it gets them out sooner.

These people would disagree with you.

http://www.prisonfellowship.org/pf-stor ... fe-stories

I am sure they will.. Of course, the ones in prison will agree.. it's what happens after they get out that is important. The ones in prison will say they have been 'transformed', so they get out earlier.

They get back on the street, and get back into their old ways, and viola, they are back in prison, to be 'transformed' all over again.

I think you just pulled that out of your head because you want it to be true. According to this Wikipedia post about Charles Colson's prison ministry, recidivism was cut by almost two-thirds for prisoners who completed a faith-based course:

"On June 18, 2003, Colson was invited by President George W. Bush to the White House to present results of a scientific study on the faith-based initiative, InnerChange, at the Carol Vance Unit (originally named the Jester II Unit) prison facility of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Fort Bend County, Texas. Colson led a small group that includes Dr. Byron Johnson of the University of Pennsylvania, who was the principal researcher of the InnerChange study, a few staff members of Prison Fellowship and three InnerChange graduates to the meeting. In the presentation, Dr. Johnson explained that 171 participants in the InnerChange program were compared to a matched group of 1,754 inmates from the prison's general population. The study found that only 8 percent of InnerChange graduates, as opposed to 20.3 percent of inmates in the matched comparison group, became offenders again in a two-year period. In other words, the recidivism rate was cut by almost two-thirds for those who complete the faith-based program. Those who are dismissed for disciplinary reasons or who drop out voluntarily, or those who are paroled before completion, have a comparable rate of rearrest and incarceration."

Ah, one problem is that Colson played loose with the statitics. For example, it is pointed out here with someone's corrospondance with Colson



In my first message to you I contested the success of your prison ministry, pointing out that your study considered someone to be "a graduate" only if they successfully got a job after release. This slants the data. It allows you to take credit for an achievement that which, whether or not someone took your program, would have a strong tendency to lower their recidivism rate. I argued that it is the job that predicts their success, not their participation in your program. I also pointed out that when you take the recidivism statistics altogether, the people who took your program (including the ones who did not "graduate") had an overall worse recidivism rate than the general prison population.


That is fudging the results.

[East of Eden]

Perhaps, but if you do not understand why those bad choices were made, you will never be able to effectively prevent crime. Much of crime is caused by poverty and a lack of education, which creates negative psychological effects such as desperation, learned helplessness, lack of focus on consequences and the future, etc. A lot of crime is also caused by mental illness, such as depression, addiction, and obsessive compulsion. Some of these illnesses are untreatable, such as psycopathy, but others like depression can be addressed.

If you target the source of bad decisions you will be much more effective than merely punishing the symptom. Society does not benefit by ignoring those causes.

Since this is a religion forum, I'll offer my solution: Salvation through Jesus Christ. Christian prison ministries have done wonders.

Then why is the recidivism among Christian convicts so high?

I would say.. that is totally and utter nonsense. You see, one thing you have to understand is that prison convicts are deceitful. They will profess anything if it gets them out sooner.

These people would disagree with you.

http://www.prisonfellowship.org/pf-stor ... fe-stories

I am sure they will.. Of course, the ones in prison will agree.. it's what happens after they get out that is important. The ones in prison will say they have been 'transformed', so they get out earlier.

They get back on the street, and get back into their old ways, and viola, they are back in prison, to be 'transformed' all over again.

I think you just pulled that out of your head because you want it to be true. According to this Wikipedia post about Charles Colson's prison ministry, recidivism was cut by almost two-thirds for prisoners who completed a faith-based course:

"On June 18, 2003, Colson was invited by President George W. Bush to the White House to present results of a scientific study on the faith-based initiative, InnerChange, at the Carol Vance Unit (originally named the Jester II Unit) prison facility of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Fort Bend County, Texas. Colson led a small group that includes Dr. Byron Johnson of the University of Pennsylvania, who was the principal researcher of the InnerChange study, a few staff members of Prison Fellowship and three InnerChange graduates to the meeting. In the presentation, Dr. Johnson explained that 171 participants in the InnerChange program were compared to a matched group of 1,754 inmates from the prison's general population. The study found that only 8 percent of InnerChange graduates, as opposed to 20.3 percent of inmates in the matched comparison group, became offenders again in a two-year period. In other words, the recidivism rate was cut by almost two-thirds for those who complete the faith-based program. Those who are dismissed for disciplinary reasons or who drop out voluntarily, or those who are paroled before completion, have a comparable rate of rearrest and incarceration."

Ah, one problem is that Colson played loose with the statitics. For example, it is pointed out here with someone's corrospondance with Colson



In my first message to you I contested the success of your prison ministry, pointing out that your study considered someone to be "a graduate" only if they successfully got a job after release. This slants the data. It allows you to take credit for an achievement that which, whether or not someone took your program, would have a strong tendency to lower their recidivism rate. I argued that it is the job that predicts their success, not their participation in your program.

That is speculation.

[TheLibertarian]

Do you know what the term "pork barrell spending" refers to? It's a term for tax payer money going to projects of individual representatives and senators, you know, like the entire "stimulus" package.

Or to build new bases, which, as we all damn well know, is the only way a vast majority of the minorities and white trash of this nation will ever find gainful employment.

If you think that military spending is equivalent to "pork barrell spending" then you clearly don't understand the word. BTW, maybe you missed it but we're in a war right now. Either we fight to win or we get out, we don't do what your president has done and committ minimal troops and set an articial timeline.

Or we can mind our own Goddamned business at home and abroad, as our Founders intended, and not spend a trillion dollars fighting foreign wars of choice.

You know, something the Constitution calls for.

Right. A "well-regulated militia". Not a professional military. Not a national military. Not a centralized military. A militia of civilian volunteers. That's exactly what I want to see us return to.

Right, you want to see this nation lose it's entire power and influence in the world and be defenseless. Thank you for being so blunt about liberal dogma.

"Liberal"? I'm not the one following the footsteps of Wilson and the Roosevelts by promoting absent-minded militarism. I believe in "trade with all, entangling alliances with none", just as our forefathers believed before the Civil War. In that regard my conservatism makes you look like an out-and-out socialist.

SYour DODGE of my intial question will not go unnoticed and says much about your credibility. Should we pull out of the UN?

Answers: 1) Yes/ 2) No/ 3) I don't want to answer because I will contradict myself.

Certainly. We also ought to pull out of every other nation in the world. I am not inclined to regard the UN any more or less favorably than any other nation we've unjustifiably intervened in, with, or at the behest of.