There’s austerity in Europe, all right — of the taxing sort

“The military gave him a choice………..

Go through trial or accept a plea and retire”

Please provide the dates and locations of the military legal proceedings you attended on behalf of that U.S. Army and/or Col. West, Reagan.

Didn’t think so.

You have an OPINION, but you do not have FACTS.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Following a military hearing, West was fined $5,000 over two months, according to West’s civillian attorney, Neal Puckett.

The punishment does not affect West’s eligibility for retirement and pension, Puckett said in a statement.

West, 42, will be assigned to the rear detachment of the 4th Infantry Division awaiting the processing of his retirement ”

Everyone have a great day

• Link
• Report this comment

Lt. Col. Allen B. West, put on trial for discharging his service weapon to force an Iraqi to provide details of a plot to kill Americans, received good news this week. A hearing officer has recommended Col. West face nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the military code, rather than a court martial. Then yesterday, his commanding officer, Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, ruled that Col. West will have to pay a $5,000 fine.

Col. West will most likely be able to retire from the Army as a lieutenant colonel. Compared to a court martial, at which he risked a conviction and dismissal from the military (which would have cost Col. West his retirement and medical benefits based on 20 years of service), the fine probably comes as something of a relief.

• Link
• Report this comment

He had a choice all right…

Accept a plea or go to trial and face a potential court martial

Yes sir……… choices, choices, choices

• Link
• Report this comment

Zebra, your sense of humor leaves much to be desired, as does your sense of accuracy.

I typed “any one President or party” in the generic sense. Keep up with the program, OK?

• Link
• Report this comment

Del, 6:02 pm, May 5

Del posted his reflective post yesterday on this blog as well as on Jay Bookman’s blog. I have already posted my response to him on Jay Bookman’s blog this am. I decided to post my response here, also, mainly for any who may not read Jay Bookman’s blog and who might be interested in my response to Del.

Del, if you have read one of my responses, then you have read the other, as they are duplicates. As I mentioned, this reposting is primarily for others, who may be interested. It is a long response but, perhaps, some might find it meaningful.
===========================================

Recon, 6:06 pm

Del or Recon,

I read your post above yesterday, both here and on Kyle Wingfield’s blog, and unlike some on either blog, I do not think you posted what you did simply to attack those whom you feel have attacked your core beliefs. I believe you also posted with some hope that someone might show how your thinking is not true, altogether. I believe you did put some thought into your post and I believe that although your remarks do contain talking points of some conservatives in media, you have, in fact, internalized those talking points enough to have made them your own. I am going to try to respond to your post, not to prove you are wrong and that I am right, but hopefully to help, in some small way, expand how you think beyond the stereotypes that I see in your post. It is my hope that not only you, but others, might be impacted to some degree by my words.

I hope that you will read my post to Towncrier which I posted on May 4th at 4:44 pm on the “climate change deniers” thread. I gave Towncrier an analogy, hoping to expand thinking, of a pie and slices of that pie. Using that same analogy, I will turn it in another direction, with you. Think of the circle of a pie’s entirety as the whole of any one person’s thinking or views. Some might see the views that a certain person has as only 5 in number. Another person might see 50 slices (points of view) within the other person’s total consciousness. I suspect that the deeper one sees into other people, the more “slices” of their “pies” of their consciousness they see in others. So, one person might see 5 permutations of thought in another, and someone else might see 500 permutations of thought in that same person. It is kind of like seeing the color blue. Some people only see light blue, medium blue, and dark blue, whereas another person might see 20 or more gradients of blue including azure and even aqua. I would argue that the person who sees only 5 pieces of pie or only 3 colors of blue is looking (for whatever reason) at others in stereotypes. The more pieces of pie we can see in others, or colors we can see in them, the more we see them uniquely and not as stereotypes. Some of those slices of views of consciousness within others will lean conservative and some will lean liberal (as well as other labels that we assign). I would suggest that if the dominant number of slices of the pie we have leans liberal, then we might define ourselves as liberal but that does not mean that we do not also hold conservative slices. Not all liberals are the same in their thinking or in the “colors” that they contain of the liberal hue. The same holds true for conservatives. Now, if we place our “pies,” or our total consciousness, on top of those of others’ “pies,” we might find that out of 500 slices or “thinking elements” we overlap with another in 50 slices of 500 total slices, or with another person we might overlap with 300 slices. But, more than likely, we overlap with everyone with some of our thinking. Now, some people see in others, not 5 slices of their consciousness pie, but 5000 slices. I would suggest that the fewer the slices of others’ pies that we see, the more we can be said to be thinking in stereotypes. Something is keeping us from seeing others with greater depth. Five slices is equivalent to a one-dimensional view of another person. 500 slices is a much richer view of another and 5000 slices of insight into another’s unique consciousness would be even less stereotypical thought of others.

What might keep people thinking of others in stereotypes? I think it might be fear. Fear that what they have always held onto as their “truths’ of reality might be incorrect, in some way. I would say that instead of the word incorrect, think that everyone’s view might be “expanded” if we could only see deeper or with more slices of the pie in ourselves and others. Being receptive to having one’s views “expanded” takes away fear. Another reason might be that there are unconscious parts of oneself that one does not like and so one projects onto another the status of “enemy,” with which one can fight. But the real battle is with oneself, projected onto another. As you know in the Bible, it is written, “Perfect love casts out fear.” I believe an essential part of that love is to love ourselves, and to love ourselves enough that we do not fear expanding our own consciousness, i. e. seeing ourselves and others not in stereotypes but with 5000 or even 500,000 pieces of pie in the consciousness of every unique human being. Doing so, makes us see that even our enemies have parts of their total of human consciousness that overlaps with ours. It makes us realize that we are all brothers and sisters on this planet. We just have not seen it yet. I would suggest that we all need to expand our awareness of the color of “blues” that are already in existence; we just haven’t seen them all yet. Now, to write about each of your tenets, which is what I think you wanted someone to address.
=====================================

The tenets of this cult (choosing a word other than “cult,” such as the more neutral “liberalism,” would demonstrate less anger) is as follows:

(1) first tenet is abortion, the left views destroying human life in the womb as a sacred tenet that should be a matter of choice regardless of personal motive;

Most who support pro choice, either liberals or conservatives, do not see abortion as a “sacred tenet” but most think it should be between the woman, her partner, and her doctor, and not the state, or others. Liberals (and conservatives) vary in their views on this issue. Some think abortion should not be allowed after three months, others after five months, and a few think it should be allowed up until birth. Some think the state should have no control in this matter and others think the state should have limited control. Conservatives also vary with this. Some conservatives believe in limited abortion possibilties and others think that no abortion should be allowed after conception, whatever the circumstances. I could name many, many other permutations of thought for both conservatives and liberals, but I have shown enough to show variety of thought (of both labels, and that is my essential contention). Think by analogy how you might feel, as a man, if the state told you that you could not practice any form of birth control (and women were not allowed any form of birth control) so that if you impregnated a woman 12 times, then you would need to support and be father to twelve children. You might resist this coming from the state because you know that you do not have the resources, financially or emotionally, to be the father of 12 children, yet the state says you are not allowed to have any form of birth control. How would you take that? Is that fair to you as an individual? I realize that abortion is not birth control, but some element applies. I have stated that I choice should be allowed within the first 3 or 4 months but not after the fetus is viable, except in unusable circumstances because only a woman and her partner know what she (they) can handle, and not the state.

(2) feminism is a tenet in so much as they’re followers must believe that conservatives are out to persecute woman;

The heart of feminism is simply to allow a unique woman to be who she inherently is – the same privilege, or right, that men have had. Some women throughout history have been more militant in seeking that unique autonomy than others, just as some black people have been more militant in seeking their unique autonomy than others. To the extent that others in society do not allow the full expression of who one is – to that extent society is denying rights. You use the word “persecute” which is a loaded word emotionally, but when you deny the unique expression of who one is you are persecuting them spiritually as well as in other ways. Thomas Jefferson said that he would “swear upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” As egalitarian as Jefferson was in his thinking, I am certain that he meant for his word choice of “man” to include all human beings.

(3) same sex marriage regardless of the fact that people of the same sex cannot procreate is a tenet;

There are many variations of this thinking. Some who think that homosexuality is essentially genetic (I am one of those), think that gays should not be denied the same rights to intimate sexual expression and even legal recognition in marriage as those born as heterosexuals. Many doctors and scientists of human nature believe that sexuality, like color, is based on a gradient from the most masculine, think Robert Mitchum, to the most feminine, think Marilyn Monroe. So much is determined by hormones and functions within the brain, that the more we see, the more we believe all should have equal rights, without harsh judgment. This variation in human nature is not to be feared. It is simply another color in life’s permutations.

(4) guns somehow have a life of their own and should be blamed rather than those who use them to kill is a tenet;

This is a very general statement to assign to all liberals. Some liberals have guns of their own for self protection and some do not. There are many gradients to see here, also. There is a difference in owning a gun for self-protection and in having an arsenal in one’s home for protection against a perceived enemy, such as “the government.” Again, the issue is complex and should be seen in its complexity. One can see why Jim and Sarah Brady have supported legislation recommending gun control of some limited nature, for example.

(5) criminals are victims of society and law enforcement is bad;

Again, this is a generality. Most liberals do see in such broad terms. Many criminals have been victims of society and others have been totally responsible for their own actions. We must be able to weigh these differences in people. Law enforcement officers, like most teachers, serve a basic, and valuable need in society. Some law officers are unethical, as are some teachers. Again, we must see the variations in each one and not label in sweeping terms that polarize.

(6) large government is good irrespective of the fact that it spends more money than it takes in and solves few problems in our society;

What entails “large government” in your mind? Does having Social Security and Medicare mean that the government is too large, or do those programs serve the will of the people? I believe even Jefferson, a proponent of small government in order to insure individual freedom of thought, would agree that, if the people want a larger government that includes programs such as Social Security, then they should have that kind of government. Jefferson stated that even if the Constitution no longer served the present will of the people, that the Constitution, itself, should be done away with and another Constitution formed to serve the current will of the people. Obviously, government must take in more revenue than it expends, but where are the priorities of the people through their government? That is for the people, as they evolve in time, to decide and also to decide how to achieve revenue and expenditures to their collective wishes as a people. The government should serve the will of the people. In a sense, the government is the people.

(7) global warming is caused by irresponsible human beings and therefore the government should spend whatever sum of money it see’s fit to control human behavior;

“should spend whatever sum of money” is a sweeping statement, with which most conservatives and liberals would disagree. Global warming may be caused by many factors, and among these may be human choices. When we deny that fact, then we do become irresponsible.

(8) regulation of business is good even though it impedes the growth of legitimate private sector enterprise that create jobs;

Balance is needed in terms of enough regulation to have a stable and just society as well as private sector growth. More regulation on business was needed after the Great Depression and some of those main regulations were in place until about 1998 or 1999. Some believe that it was the loosening of those regulations that helped to create the housing fiasco which burst into the Great Recession. of 2008. Balance is the key.

(9) over taxation of the wealthy is good regardless of the fact that the wealthy invest in our economy and create jobs;

Balance, again, is the key here. Your statement is a generality and contains leading words such as “over” taxation (What, for instance, would entail “over” – remember during the Eisenhower years the wealthy were taxed at a much higher rate than presently – 90%ile instead of 30+ %ile) We should appreciate the fact that even the most lowly maid in the most lowly motel invests in our economy as well as those of wealth and power.

( 10) the American military complex because it puts America ahead of its adversaries is bad;

Few liberals think the military is “bad” and most appreciate the service of America’s military personnel to our nation. Many think that the military has a place in society as does education and other areas of national need. Again, the key word is balance and what that entails, as well as what proportion of the national priorities each area should have. You use the words “ahead” and “adversaries.” I, as simply one liberal, seek a world in which America leads because she is respected for her humanity, and not because she is feared. That kind of world would lead to more allies and enemies, I believe.

(11) the Constitution was written by biased white men and is a document that shouldn’t be taken seriously;

The Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights within it, and the Declaration of Independence are documents that both liberals and conservatives, and all other Americans, are generally very proud of being the beneficiary of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

(12) America has been an intrinsically evil country in need of reformation;

America as an “intrinsically evil country” would have very few people with that “slice of pie” within their individual consciousness.

(13) Christians are bad people because many vote for Republicans.

All I think I need to say here is that part of the slices of my own pie are “Christian,” “Liberal,” “Democrat” among many, many other slices. I overlap with many conservatives in being a Christian, but then even Christians differ in how they view the essential tenets of Christianity. Christ said those tenets can be summed into simple two: (1) love God (2) Love your fellow man and woman as yourself. I, also, respect the need of others to have their own way of worshipping God, whatever their religion, and I respect the right of those who do not believe in God and choose not to have any religion, to have that right without condemnation, if they see reality with those eyes.
—————————————————–

I have tried to respond to your post from care, not from ego, Del. I hope you can see that. There is no need for you – or others – to respond to me. As I have mentioned in the past, I must watch my blood pressure and I do not want to get into conflict, as a result of my post. Please just view my post as food for thought – or not. Perhaps, my post on my blog, regarding stereotypical thinking, may be meaningful to some. Here is the link, again:

http://maryelizabethsings.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/danger-zone-stereotypical-thinking/

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle…spending cuts have not worked in Europe. Period. Those people are so miserable they went Socialist….

And you can’t cut taxes further in the U.S. without cutting spending or increasing the deficit……

You know who will know how to handle this….? Bill Clinton…….He did a fantastic job growing the economy while reducing the deficit…..Not even Ronald Reagan did that…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Lets fact check kyle.

“Britain, considered a poster child for the hazards of austerity, hasn’t cut spending at all.” kyle wingnut.

True or false??

• Link
• Report this comment

Reagan, did you cite an opinion piece? I can’t tell since you failed to include your link.

• Link
• Report this comment

Telling someone to “STFU”

Who the F are you?

Some nobody with his chicken chest poked out, huffn and puffn, strutn around with some Faux Alpha personality

Maybe ALPHabet soup……..

hahahahahahahah

Keep the laughs coming

• Link
• Report this comment

West is the perfect Republican bookend to another highly disgraced, highly decorated military officer – Ollie North.

But unlike this one, that liar and criminal should have gone to prison.

Fortunately for him, the servile and spineless Democrats in congress let him get off scot-free for his “testimony”.

Where he proved just how well the cons have perfected the art of shrewdly playing “I was out of the loop” stupid!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Who the F are you? ”

I’m a non-partisan blogger who loves to poke holes in the hyperbolic and non-factual arguments on both sides of the spectrum, Reagan, unlike you. I do manage to irritate the hyper-partisan on your side more often, simply because you don’t have the intellectual honesty to use facts instead of the hyperbole and opinion you rely on to make your case.

• Link
• Report this comment

Why wouldn’t an innocent man who up to that time had a good career want to defend himself against a court of his “peers”? He was innocent, right?

Why would he just “elect” to retire along with accepting a lessor charge?

If he could have just retired, why were there even any proceedings that ended up with two choices……. go trough a potential court martial or accept a lessor charge

Why isn’t there one website taking about the 3rd choice were West of “his own free will” could have just left the military and told the prosecutors don’t waste your time or mine?

Where is that info at?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Did you fact check the data ?”

Given that it’s the government’s own data, getaclue, I’m making the leap that they actually know what they are talking about (unlike this government who keeps revising their data downward when no one is looking).

• Link
• Report this comment

Yeah, ti.

I don’t follow their politics but have asked bloggers in London.

They laughed at you cons.

• Link
• Report this comment

So, Reagan, you’re now saying the ABSENCE of information constitutes proof?

You could have been a lawyer. Not a very good one, but one nevertheless.

• Link
• Report this comment

“But now the sideliners latest outrage is that part about peaceably assembling to redress grievances.”

AmVet needs to brush up on his knowledge of the term “peaceably”.

• Link
• Report this comment

What is going on here? Has the DNC started paying staffers to post anti-GOP trash on this blog? It happened with the last big election. Twenty to 30 paid DNC bloggers in Georgia posting every day all day with countless wild accusations.

Reading the posts here surely does remind me of those days. And book length posts? PLease, folks. Try to post your own opinions without bias or long reprints. If you can’t, give us a warning so we can skip the whole thing. Does anybody really want to read nutty stuff and false accusations?

Oh well, maybe I shouldn’t ask.

• Link
• Report this comment

Have a good afternoon, Tiberius. I’ll be heading for the mountains tomorrow This weather is wonderful. Enjoy!

• Link
• Report this comment

ti,

Have you ever admitted you are wrong?

• Link
• Report this comment

Barry

The AFA, which is a conservative watch group is in constant boycott mode. Is that ok?

http://www.afa.net/

If it is done within the law, I could careless who boycotts whom

• Link
• Report this comment

@Lil’ Barry Bailout-Oscar Wilde famously said when the facts aren’t on your side, just start calling names. Looks like Lil Barry here has learned that lesson well.

Rush would approve.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – Banned from Bookman’s and proud of it!
May 6th, 2012
12:18 pm: Now, just so Reagan doesn’t get his girly panties in a wad this afternoon, I’m going to let him know I won’t be available to debunk his nonsense for a few hours due to my pending enjoyment of the great North Georgia outdoors.

But I’ll be back. . . .

Dusty
May 6th, 2012
12:24 pm

Have a good afternoon, Tiberius. I’ll be heading for the mountains tomorrow This weather is wonderful. Enjoy!

WNC mtns for me.
But I’d guess we’re all going for the same reason.

• Link
• Report this comment

Barry

So glad that we could agree that if boycotts are done within the confines of the law, it is a ok, regardless of our individual opinions and affiliations…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Right, he who never lies. Gargantuan LOL.

99.9% of the protesters being peaceable is not enough for you.

No, oh perfect one, you need perfection.

And even that would not be good enough for you unempowered sideliners.

You would still find some demented reason to hate what they are about and make up childish stories because they have the courage to do what you cowards don’t.

To fight back…

• Link
• Report this comment