RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Pirates!

Posted by: Zapos
- [15241919] Mon, Apr 13, 2009, 20:25

Anyone have any ideas how to solve this Pirate problem? Or do you just want to call each other "lefty" and righty"?
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
31Perm Dude
      ID: 18351159
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 10:51
Baldwin is trying, and failing, at something Ann Coulter says she never engages in: satire.
32Pancho Villa
      ID: 49325158
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 10:58
they are making a very good point about the hypocrisy of the left.

No they're not, although, if they were interested in pointing out the hypocrisy of the left concerning foreign policy, it would be easy to do.

The continuation and even escalation of drone bombings in the Waziristan provinces of Pakistan, which no one on the left seems to be protesting, would be a golden example of the left's hypocrisy.
Of course you don't hear the right protesting this policy either, since bombings with heavy civilian casualties is something they've supported in the region for years.
33Perm Dude
      ID: 18351159
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 11:03
#30: Another graph
34Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 11:08
They are not kidding, they are making a very good point about the hypocrisy of the left.
Those were all of the points that were made when Bush was the president but now the left has doing a 180 because their guy is now the president.....but I think you were smart enough to figure that out.


you're kidding now, right?

there were no american lives at danger when Saddam was in charge in Iraq. americans are more imperiled, and more dead, without him there.

there were, and are, american lives at danger with these pirates...
35Wilmer McLean
      ID: 59318159
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 11:42
RE: 33

Thanx PD.

36Wilmer McLean
      ID: 59318159
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 12:02
Iraqi Intelligence Service IIS - GlobalSecurity.org

...

In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.

...


Clinton Says U.S. Must Face New Security Challenges (03/12/93) -- GlobalSecurity.org

The United States cannot pretend that far-off violence has
no meaning at home, President Clinton declared March 12.
While the aggression of a Saddam Hussein or the violence of a Bosnia may not
directly threaten U.S. shores, the president said, Americans dare not
"overlook the significance" such new challenges present. "Blinders never
provide security," he said.

...
37Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 12:27
I must've missed the 12 UN resolutions condemning this specific act of piracy before we "went it alone", acted unilaterally and without approval from the UN Security Council.

I don't want the proof of piracy to emerge in the form of a mushroom cloud coming from the hull of a sinking ship, but I don't want this cowboy diplomacy either.

Obomba just created 1,000 more pirates.
38Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 12:32
No blood for cheap imported Chinese goods.
39Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 12:36
Well, it's at least a little more clever than a photograph of a bag of Cheetos.
40Baldwin
      ID: 132854
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 12:47
Somali hospitality requires large parting gifts from the guests. Who are we to judge one culture superior to another?
41Baldwin
      ID: 132854
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 12:57
It's not like they are thieves. They have merely created an alternative way to regard work, society, and life's pleasures in an economically and religiously repressive age.
42Baldwin
      ID: 132854
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 13:10
They have created a new vision of commercial democracy that contrasts positively with the legalistic control freaks of the outmoded nation state.
43Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 14:56
One man's pirate is another's freedom fighter.
44Perm Dude
      ID: 18351159
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 15:11
Maybe you're right. Maybe they are just misunderstood:

45Baldwin
      ID: 553441513
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 15:15
If I am not mistaken Susan Sontag wrote a book justifying piracy.
46Perm Dude
      ID: 18351159
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 15:19
No, you're mistaken. That was about the sociology of pirate lesbians.

47Baldwin
      ID: 553441513
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 15:28
Holloween at the PD household.
48Perm Dude
      ID: 18351159
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 15:35
I really don't think you want to bring wives into this discussion, no matter how satirical you think you are being...
49Baldwin
      ID: 553441513
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 15:49
Hmmm, what other source could PD have for that photo...hmmmm.
50Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Wed, Apr 15, 2009, 16:26




(no nudity, but a few four-letter letter words and a WHOLE LOT of bad acting...)

51nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 05047110
      Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 17:39

Is Rush back on the Oxy cotton?

Shane Murphy, second-in-command aboard the ship seized by Somali pirates this month, is happy to be home. But he's not happy to be sharing turf with land-lubber Rush Limbaugh, who politicized the pirate affair by referring to the pirates as "black teenagers."

"It feels great to be home," said Murphy in an interview with WCBV in Boston. "It feels like everyone around here has my back, with the exception of Rush Limbaugh, who is trying to make this into a race issue...that's disgusting."

Limbaugh made the remark to suggest why President obama might have appeared preoccupied at church on the day of the operation to rescue the ship's captain, who was taken hostage by the pirates until Navy SEAL snipers shot them in a daring rescue effort.

"He was worried about the order he had given to wipe out three teenagers on the high seas," Limbaugh said. "Black Muslim teenagers."

"You gotta get with us or against us here, Rush," Murphy said. "The president did the right thing...It's a war.... It's about good versus evil. And what you said is evil. It's hate speech. I won't tolerate it."


Does Limpbaugh just enjoy being a complete ass? Or is he back on drugs again? Or did he ever get off them. Oxy is basically heroin, they say it's the hardest drug to quit.





52Seattle Zen
      ID: 8302511
      Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 17:46
I believe that Rush's deep seated animosity towards blacks will eventually bite him in the ass in an Iman-like meltdown.

With a hugely popular, Black, liberal president successfully running our country, Rush will inevitably freak out. No way to avoid it.
53nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 05047110
      Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 18:14

What is an "Iman like Meltdown"?

54Seattle Zen
      ID: 8302511
      Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 18:17
Imus, whoops.
55nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 05047110
      Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 02:33

Geez Zen I thought it was some cryptic reference I wasn't familiar with, instead it's just another session with the pipe. 8-]

56Baldwin
      ID: 553441513
      Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 08:59
That's the problem with rescuing liberals.
57Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 09:17
I believe that Rush's deep seated animosity towards blacks will eventually bite him in the ass in an Iman Imus-like meltdown.

Repeated playings of 'Barack the Magic Negro' didn't bite him.
58Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 10:36
That's the problem with rescuing liberals.

your drive-by "OMGZ, liberuls are SCARY!!" posts are even cuter when they come in place of you responding to any of the challenges posed to you by folks like MITH...

but, i suppose, much like your idols Coulter and Limbaugh, if you don't have anything intelligent to say, just bash bash bash with silly blanket statements.
59Baldwin
      ID: 553441513
      Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 21:57
You perhaps think I should have done a 'quality' post like #50.

I'm just amazed you haven't been site banned.
60Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 22:00
You perhaps think I should have done a 'quality' post like #50.

nice subject change. you're the one incapable of meeting the challenges posed to you.

I'm just amazed you haven't been site banned.

i've posted nothing that has warranted being banned.

additionally, when i have posted an image that offended, if i was asked to remove it, i did.
61Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 09:50
Volokh:
The Market Has Spoken
Despite the surge in Somali piracy and encouragement from some employees of the U.S. government, commercial ships aren’t choosing to put armed guards on their vessels. And with good reason: given present conditions, anyway, it’s a bad idea.

As I discuss in The Invisible Hook, like their Caribbean forefathers, Somali pirates are in the business of making money, not harming hostages. Of the 815 hostages Somali pirates took last year, only four died and two were injured under pirate care.

Pirates aren’t treating hostages well because they’re nice guys. They’re treating hostages well because it pays to do so. A dead hostage fetches no ransom and pirates’ business model would collapse if they injured prisoners or allowed them to die. The economics of piracy has a simple bottom line: for all the problems piracy may pose, the threat of dead and injured innocents isn’t one of them.

That could change, however, if commercial ships starting carrying armed guards on their ships. Armed guards will of course defend against pirate attacks, potentially leading to fire fights that could jeopardize innocent sailors’ lives. The prospect of having to battle for their prizes will deter some pirates. But others will remain undeterred. And for the remaining industry, armed guards’ effect may very well be to increase the dangers that piracy poses rather than reducing them.

The profit-driven behavior of commercial shippers corroborates this possibility. Like pirates, commercial shippers also have strong incentives to keep merchant sailors alive and well: insurance costs. If armed guards reduced the dangers of piracy instead of increasing them, commercial shippers’ insurance costs would fall by employing guards instead of rising. But in this case commercial shippers would have hired armed guards already, which they haven’t. Commercial shippers don’t need government to encourage them to undertake the most profitable course of action.

The market has spoken: Even in today’s pirate-infested waters off Somalia, the low probability of being captured by pirates, together with the fact that pirates release their hostages unscathed, means it’s cheaper--and safer--to go without armed guards.
Predictably, Volokh's readers aren't thrilled with this entry.
62Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 12:55
Is it all about the money?
63Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 12:58
Ask auto company execs who ultimately decide it's cheaper to pay settlements to the deceased families of their clientelle rather than recall cars with safey-hazard design flaws.
64Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 13:02
And what correlation does that approach have with the [unsubstantiated] 'low probability of being captured by pirates'?
65Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 13:04
Mith

So you are in the 'money is the only relevant consideration' camp or aren't you?

67Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 13:16
No, I'm in the 'as if any other consideration is relevant to typical corporate executives, even when grave safety concerns are at issue' camp.

On the specific question of whether these crews should be armed, I'm for whatever ultimately makes them safer. And I'm not at all sure that arming them does so. 4 deaths out of 815 hostages last year - paired with the fact that these pirates seem eager to show that they will return fire - leads me to think there is some merit to the argument.

But if a stronger military presence is established there to combat piracy, it seems likly enough that the pirates might become more dangerous to their captives in response. And if arming crews then proves more prudent to their safety, then give every last one of 'em a bazooka.
68Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 13:31
From my perspective, I don't see why the US government should continue to protect those who refuse to pay for any protection themselves. Some of these ships are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and are carrying hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cargo. And they refuse to pony up for a dime of security despite waves of attacks that have made international headlines? Come on. If they are relying on our military to protect their commercial interests without doing anything to protect themselves, then they should either be left to fend for themselves or taxed.
69Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 17:34
I'm for whatever

Way to take a stand. Please hand your 20/20 hindsight glasses to the president so that he may know 'whatever' that course of action might be.

70Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 17:36
despite waves of attacks - Razor

It's so rare we don't need to worry about it, according to the piece we are discussing. Please keep up.

71Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 19, 2009, 23:50
Way to take a stand.

That post is all of 5 contrite sentences. What you cite was part of a deliberately broad opening statement which was carefully and explicitly explained in the following three sentences.

I'm sorry, was I supposed to weigh in with a comparison of the captive survival rate of unarmed merchant crews with a study of likely piracy deterrance and merchant casualties resulting from piracy incidents with armed merchants and from careful logical parsing of the data draft a comprehensive international merchant pirate engagement docrtine?
72Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 20, 2009, 05:16
Let's just all be clear that when someone says, "I'm for whatever works"...

...he didn't just say something profound. He just said I have no flipping idea which way to go on this one.
73Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 20, 2009, 07:03
He just said I have no flipping idea which way to go on this one.

Anyone else get that impression from post 67?

Anyone?
74sarge33rd
      ID: 21435208
      Wed, May 20, 2009, 09:53
Is Boldy then implying, that he is for whatever doesn't work?
75Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, May 20, 2009, 10:11
Perhaps Sarge has finally found the fix for democracy. We'll just put 'whatever works' on the ballot and people can vote for that!

76Perm Dude
      ID: 174121611
      Wed, May 20, 2009, 10:13
Better than "partisanship, divorce from pragmatism!" which is what the GOP has been advocating for some time.

The GOP: Where Party Purity is Our Most Important Rule.
77Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Wed, May 20, 2009, 10:13
Are you incapable of reading, Boldwin? "Whatever works" was mentioned before an explanation of what he thinks the proper strategy might be, but he reserves the right to be wrong.

Humility. Jesus had it, you don't.

78C1-NRB
      ID: 2911103011
      Wed, May 20, 2009, 10:16
We'll just put 'whatever works' on the ballot and people can vote for that!

Hmm. For me it would be a toss-up between that and "None of the above."
79Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, May 20, 2009, 11:23
For the record, I just realized that the post I pasted in #61 was not written by Eugene Volokh, but by guest blogger Peter Leeson.
80Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Wed, May 20, 2009, 12:37
although this probably belongs in the future of the GOP thread, it's a response to Baldwin's #75 here.

When the head of the GOP says that fighting the "cool" and "hip" factor of Obama is of utmost importance, he's missing the point.

then again, when he also says that GOP will confront Obama with class and dignity, unlike the "shabby and classless way" Democrats criticized George W. Bush, he obviously has no clue, because the last several months have been anything from class and dignity from Cheney to Limbaugh, and from questioning Obama's nationality and religion, to basically not liking him because he's black, the GOP has shown little, if any restraint, with the exception of, oddly, folks like GW and Condi Rice.
81Boldwin
      ID: 1981396
      Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 18:04
Pirated ship retaken.
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message:

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour21
Last 24 hours21
Last 7 days43
Last 30 days1814
Since Mar 1, 20071896780