gdp's Comments

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:08:54 +0000

Yikes! I mean, "the response does NOT address the question or comment".

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:07:30 +0000

"Not responsive" means that the response does address the question or comment. So, for example, if you ask me, "why do you think that Obama's tax program benefits America", and I respond by saying, "you are obviously a right-winger who watches Fox news all the time," well . . . that is not responsive. (Not suggesting you made that comment! Just an example.)

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:03:35 +0000

I'm an insurance underwriter with a degree in accounting and master's in business administration. Never taught in any school, though I've given some seminars over the years in risk-analysis and claim practice. I don't agree that my language in this forum is particularly argumentative, but I'll leave to others to decide whether that is true or even important.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 21:05:05 +0000

In the 1950s, under President Eisenhower the corporate tax rate was as high as 90%. (Under President Nixon, the top rate was 77%. Under President Reagan, the top corporate tax rate was about 70%. President Obama has proposed a rate of 39%.) So, it would appear that Obama is allowing corporations to keep more than twice the assets that were taxed when your were growing up. Surely, you don't mean to suggest that we "turn this around" by recommending raising the corporate tax rate to 90% again, as when you were growing up?

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:41:26 +0000

You state: "We need to do a weapons destruction plan ... "I'll destroy one missile if you destroy one missile" or something to that effect. " YES! I mean, there has got to be some way of doing something like that! This isn't (pardon the pun) rocket science. Sure, there'll be potential abuses, but that is no reason to at least move in positive direction. "God only knows what's rotting over in Russia, or being sold to Iran." Agreed, re. Russia. That's discussed in the Senate report I mentioned. Re. Iran, actually Iran's weapons systems are partially the result of the programs fostered under the Shah. In the military, I worked alongside Iranian sailors during the mid-1980s, who had come to the U.S. to learn naval electronics and weapons technology. Bless you. Nice chatting.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:33:39 +0000

The citizens of Israel and the Palestinians actually largely (overwhelmingly) agree with the 2-state settlment proposed in UN SC 242. The world has agreed for decades. Only the govts' of the U.S. and Israel have blocked it, consistently vetoing the resolution at the U.N., usually 141-2, or comparable voting pattern. You state: "We're not talking about rational, reasonable people here." I disagree. And the entire rest of world opinion concurs. The irony is that the position you just articulated is, itself, a major part of the problem. As for the rest, seems to me evasive and defeatist. Every democratic movement in history would be rendered a nullity if its participants adopted the posture you articulate. In any event, it appears that what you ultimately leave me with is the belief that the U.S. reserves unto itself the unilateral right to determine the scale, scope and limits of how the rest of the world may be permitted to conduct its affairs. Such a position constitutes a categorical rejection of the most fundamental moral principle: universality -- that I apply to myself the same standards I apply to others.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:14:24 +0000

You say: "For all our faults, I still say we are a great nation with high ideals. We aren't perfect, but we come closer than anyone else in terms of our intentions." I agree that the ideals are high; but the conduct of the gov't in its foreign relations is largely not. The documentary and historical record is pretty aweful, starting with Washington's massacre of the Iroquois, up to Bush II's invasion of Iraq -- an explicit act of aggression by even the most conservative standards. Go here for a relatively simple chronicle: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interven... This is just an example table. Just a keyword search on google. There are many other sources.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:06:54 +0000

You keep saying "We" -- as if there is no distinction between civil society (us) and the state (the federal gov't). As I have only very briefly explained, the record is simply overwhelming that the U.S. gov't has, in iots foreign relations, repeatedly engaged in conduct that is contrary to the rule of law and increased the danger to its own citizens, not to mention the citizens of other countries. I disagree that the U.S. gov't -- OUR gov't -- has behaved in a principled fashion. . . Gov'ts serve the interests of private power, and are only prevented from doing so, if at all, when citizens act to prevent them. The U.S. is no different. Indeed, as a rule, the more powerful the nation, then greater it abuses its power.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:01:07 +0000

Too much to say, and not enough time to respond. You say: "I think self-preservation will keep most nations from deploying their weapons." I disagree; moveover, the costs of guessing wrong are too high. In 1962, the world came within ONE WORD of nuclear war: the U.S. fired one Soviet ships; two Soviet sub commanders gave the order to fire nuclear armed torpedos; a 3rd Soviet commander countermanded the order. Had he not done so, we may not be here. Also, there is substantial evidence showing that with increased nuclear proliferation there is increased risk of accidental launch, mis-interpreted data triggering automated response, theft of weapons, hacking into weapons systems, etc. An extensive gov't report on this issue was issued a couple of years ago; the conclusions of the report were shocking.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:40:54 +0000

The alternative is not difficult: the U.S. gov't -- OUR gov't -- should stop engaging in behavior that increase the threat of terrorism, the risk of military conflict, and the amplification of the global arms race. The U.S. gov't should honor its treaty obligations. It should substantially reduce its nuclear weapons stocks, and do so over a period of time with the cooperation and participation of other nations. It should eliminate its biological and chemical weapons, iagain n compliance with its obligations under various treaties. Foremost, it should consider the grievances of "enemy" countries, and take reasonable and prudent steps towards alleviating those grievances. Now, obviously, this will not guarantee permanent peace and security. There are never any guarantees. But there can be a radical reduction in the threat of catastrophic violence, and a corresponding increase in our well-being, both materially and spiritually.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:18:30 +0000

Not sure your comment is really responsive. That said, I will observe that the question is not necessarily whether a statement is factual. The question is: what is at stake in offering a given fact under given circumstances. While I would be interested in discussing this issue further, I perceive that there may be a dminishing return on both of our time in so doing. So, I recommend we move on.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:07:26 +0000

I perceive that you have given considerable thought to this issue, and I respect that and encourage you to share that with others. I think we can all agree with the words of Bertram Russell and Albert Einstein, who over 50 years ago called on the peoples and nations of the world to recognize that the human race, as a specie, stands at the threshold of exterminating itself if we do not take seriously the grave threat militarization poses to our collective existence. Despite winning the Cold War, and emerging as the sole, reigning super-power in the world, the U.S. gov't has really done very little to lead in reducing the threat posed by the arming or and militarizing of the world. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Washington has consistently increased military spending, weapons development, and the sale of weapons throughout the world. Under Bush II, the U.S. has moved forward to begin the militarization of space -- again, contrary to the vast majority of U.S. citizens and, of course, citizens of the world.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:00:41 +0000

When you say "our principles", I am not sure what you are referring to. If you mean the principles of the majority of U.S. citizens, then "yes", in general I trust those principles. For years, public opinion polls show that U.S. citizens disapprove of U.S. militarism, opposes the use of military force in resolving conflicts, endorses the use of military force only as a last resort and then only when the country is facing the imminent threat of attack, opposes the militarization of space, and wants a substantial reduction in defense spending. Both major parties disregard that large concensus. Thus, the principles of the majority of U.S. citizens are not the same as those of the gov't, which drives increased militarism and amplifies the threat of conflict by doing so. Obviously, I am very much opposed to a global arms race. But in light of U.S. gov't practice, it is the height of hypocrasy for the U.S. gov't to prescribe that North Korea should not develop a weapons system (regardless of how undesireable that might be).

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:47:44 +0000

I disagree with some comments, and agree with others. Sometimes, I ask questions; sometimes I respond to questions. I don't assume that I know what the "right reasons" are for participating in this forum. And I do not prescribe for others what those reasons are. I would very much like to continue hearing from EagleTears (LOVE the moniker!), Hobbes and others.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:44:34 +0000

If her words are to be believed (and I have no reason to think otherwise), the "young girl" is an adult. She is intelligent, articulate thoughtful and appears to be quite educated. She is a citizen of our great democracy and therefore has both the rights and responsibilities that go with that. Nothing shameful about meeting your fellow citizens as equals and with respect.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:39:14 +0000

I respect your opinion. The question is not whether one uses "proper language". Rather, the question is, what can we learn by examining the language we use to describe reality. Sometimes that is a question worth pursuing; sometimes it is not. I'll leave it others to comment on that point.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:34:08 +0000

When you say "That's not racist", to what does "that" refer? The observation to which I was responding is so hopelessly degraded as to really merit no further comment. To assert that "things that happen are a part of history" is not at all helpful. One might just as readily observe that John Endicott's followers killed Pequot children for sport, or that the Spanish Inquisition tortured Jews, If I were to therefore suggest that "Christians will kill people for sport", what would you expect the reaction to be here or anywhere else in civilized society? Would it suffice for me to blithely remark that "things happen"?

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:19:20 +0000

The "dark skeletons" are "dark" only to the citizens of the U.S., who would be horrified to learn what their gov't has been doing. None of what I described above is in the "best interest" of U.S. citizens. At best, it is only in the relatively short term best interest of certain sectors of power within the U.S. As history teaches, the general public usually pays the price.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:15:44 +0000

As for the purported threat that North Korea could sell its materials to other countries and terrorists, the U.S. gov't has been doing that for decades. The U.S. is the largest exporter of weapons in the world. It not only sells weapons, it helps repressive gov'ts. develop WMD systems. For example, after overthrowing the elected prime minister, Mossadegh, in 1953, the U.S. installed the Shah and proceeded to assist Iran in its uranium enrichment program. In 1982, the Reagan administration removed Saadam's Iraq from the list of terrorist states, in order to provide Saadam biotoxins, chemical weapons and WMD technology. The list goes on and on. In light of the foregoing, by what right does the U.S. gov't assert the authority to prohibit another from POTENTIALLY engaging in a practice that the U.S. gov't itself has ACTUALLY been engaging in on a massive scale for decades?

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Mission Statement

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:07:50 +0000

There seems to be something of a double standard here.. Whatever the depravities of North Korea's internal totalitarian practices (and they are many), by and large it has not engaged in raw aggression. Unlike the U.S.: North Korea has not invaded any foreign countries in the past 50 years; North Korea does not have 800 military bases stationed around the world; it has not been condemned by the World Court for aggression; it does not maintain a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers and the like, scattered all over the world; North Korea does not have some 25-35,000 of its soldiers stationed at military bases along the border of the United States; North Korea is not known to have staged military coups throughout Latin America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia; North Korea has not toppled democratically elected leaders in other countries, and replaced them with authoritarian dictators; North Korea does not provide massive arms, training and support to repressive governments (although it might like to).