Response to Bill Peckham

[Hemodoc]

The UN has the final say on these issues and could actually declare them off limits to all US citizens. You are simply in error that we have retained control of these lands.

That's not right. That's not even wrong. You have predicated your entire argument on a fallacy that has nothing to do with the shutdown of the government.

My QUESTION to Aleta still stands, WHY should we pay taxes to support land that is no longer under our sovereign control? It seems you have not understood my question either. It was quite simple and succinct.

It is not a question that deserves an answer because it is immaterial to this discussion. You are thoroughly misinformed and your smug pedantry is all the more laughable because of it. Here's a statistical question for you:

Which has the higher probability?
1. All of these other members from a wide range of political perspectives are wrong, including people who have lived and worked in the area and know it very well and those who read articles from outside random extremist paranoid internet sites.
2. YOU are wrong.

Maybe we should take an IHD poll!

A non-issue? Really?? Well don't tell that to the states who have passed sovereignty acts protecting against UN oversight as well as the congressional people who have tried to resume direct control over all of our lands. But, no bother, I guess I am just a paranoid weirdo to ignore. In any case, have fun my dear making fun of this issue but who is the joke on really?

Jeane Kirkpatrick had a very strong opinion on this issue. It will suffice to hear her opinion on this very troubling issue:

 First of all, as you know, any U.N. based agreements or
contracts which allow use of our natural resources and public
lands require various forms of authorization from our elected
officials. In this particular case, the authorization must come
from Congress. The Convention itself requires that ``the
inclusion of a property in the World Heritage List requires the
consent of the State governed.'' [Article II, Section 3] The
State in question is the United States and its consent requires
the consent of the people through their duly elected
representatives in accordance with the Constitution. That means
Congress, the body delegated the authority over land management
by the Constitution. The ``American Land Sovereignty Protection
Act'' is consistent with both U.S. and international law.
    In the second part of your question, you ask what are the
specific characteristics of ``international committees' dealing
with conservation which makes them particularly threatening?''
My answer is, those committees which affect substantial
interests of U.S. citizens. If American citizens have an
interest in the conservation of a particular area, that
decision should be made by Congress, the body delegated
responsibility by the Constitution for making these decisions
in full view of the American public. And if each decision
requires consideration of costs and benefits to the property
rights of individual voters affected, so be it. UNESCO
committees are not competent to address the complex private
property and public interest issues presented here. They have
no interest in how their actions affect private U.S. citizens.
I believe Congress should not abdicate its responsibilities for
land management to international groups whose members have no
concern for protecting individual property rights and American
interests.
            Sincerely,
                                              Jeane J. Kirkpatrick.

                                 


[Weggy]

I am not sure of the big deal about having a piece of land be called a world heritage site. Wouldn’t we want to maintain and protect it for our own citizens?

Anyways, a world heritage site is only a list of sites that is deemed to be of natural, cultural or historical significations by UNESCO. If you look at their site (http://whc.unesco.org/en/faq/), they clearly state:
“Who owns a site once it’s inscribed on the World Heritage List?
The site is the property of the country on whose territory it is located, but it is considered in the interest of the international community to protect the site for future generations. Its protection and preservation becomes a concern of the international World Heritage community as a whole.”

Basically, the US still owns the land of Yellowstone, Smokies, etc. It is just that it is in the best interest of the international community to keep these sites preserved so future generations can experience these locations.  As I stated before, wouldn’t we want to maintain and protect these locations for our citizens? Either way, the UN does not ‘control’ these sites. We could dig up Yellowstone and demolish its natural beauty if we wanted too. There would probably backlash from US citizens, environmentalists and the international community. But, we could do so since we own that land.

In regards to the Yellowstone case, it was a domestic issue before the UN/international community became involved. The mining company that wanted to mine 2.5 miles away from Yellowstone was a subsidiary of a Canadian company. They owned the land because of the Mining Law of 1872. This law allowed people to purchase land for mining for $5 an acre. The mining company purchased 27 acres a long time ago for that price. Nothing was done with this land until, the company wanted to mine gold from it in the 90s. It was in the best interest for the US since we were allowing a Canadian company to mine on US soil near our Yellowstone. If international involvement helped with the issue; I am not seeing the problem.

I am not really seeing much in terms of states passing laws against UN agendas. In fact, the only one I found was Alabama and that was Senate Bill 477 (SB 477). That law targets UN Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is from 1992 and discusses how development should be in the 21st century (hence agenda 21). It is a non-binding plan and countries can voluntarily adhere to its guidelines. ICLEI is also related to Agenda 21. It is allowing cities to become part of the plan to become sustainable, have clean energy and help with climate change. There has been some controversy over Agenda 21, but it is related to creating policies that may interfere with business and economic development (mostly due to environmental restrictions which may turn companies away from that location) and taking away property rights. Before you decide to say, I told you so, you need to realize that Agenda 21 is a list of recommendations. Meaning, nations/states/cities are free to take portions of the document and implement them into their development/planning. After all, Agenda 21 is a non-binding plan. Unless the US decides to implement Agenda 21 as law, it would never affect any US citizen. Given that property rights and money are involved, I doubt it would be fully implemented as people are greedy.

Lastly, Jeane Kirkpatrick may have stated that, but I am not sure how it is relevant to this discussion as it is her opinion. Sure, she was one of the most influential foreign policy advisors under Reagan, but that does not make her correct. If we look at foreign policies during the 1980s, there were a huge amount of missteps (Iran-Contra affair, Grenada, Afghanistan, etc). All of which still have problems in modern times. Doesn't seem like a good track record to me.

Agenda 21: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&nr=23&type=400&menu=35
ICLEI: http://www.icleiusa.org/


My 

[Hemodoc]

Let's start with your last comment that Jeane Kirkpatrick's opinion is meaningless. Where does that place your opinion? As the former ambassador to the UN, the issue of UN treaties is absolutely something that her opinion is of value.

Secondly, you are admitting that the UN did have influence on private property rights in the US with the Yellowstone/mining incident. The company in question had mined for decades and was highly regarded as a model company by the regulators. If you believe that the UN should have a voice in private property interests in the US, then you don't support sovereignty of the US which is right back to my original comment. I posed a question, that is all.

Thirdly, you are grossly in error to state that we could do whatever we wish in those areas declared World Heritage Sites. Sorry, but a company with a long history of mining practices was not allowed to continue operations on private property once the UN became involved. Once again, this was private property. That is significant and you should not dismiss this important case as you do. Nor should you fail to understand that the UN treaty is a substantial agreement. It is not just window dressing on our national parks system. Your synopsis of the episode is not accurate. Here is a much more detailed account of the undo influence of the UN on the outcome of this event.

http://nj.npri.org/nj97/06/protect.htm

Fourthly, the US established the first wilderness preservation acts and is the model for the rest of the world. There is no need for any further "protection" from external sources since we have already placed these areas for future generations to enjoy and done so in an elegant manner for over 100 years. In many ways, our national parks system is the envy of the world and it should remain completely under the power and control of the people of the United States, not in some UN committee.

Lastly, the American Sovereignty Act is a bill placed in congress year after year that has had broad support in the House for many years but failed in the Senate. There is broad grass roots support for this bill  limiting the influence of UN treaties over American laws.

[willowtreewren]

The UN has the final say on these issues and could actually declare them off limits to all US citizens. You are simply in error that we have retained control of these lands.

That's not right. That's not even wrong. You have predicated your entire argument on a fallacy that has nothing to do with the shutdown of the government.

My QUESTION to Aleta still stands, WHY should we pay taxes to support land that is no longer under our sovereign control? It seems you have not understood my question either. It was quite simple and succinct.

It is not a question that deserves an answer because it is immaterial to this discussion. You are thoroughly misinformed and your smug pedantry is all the more laughable because of it. Here's a statistical question for you:

Which has the higher probability?
1. All of these other members from a wide range of political perspectives are wrong, including people who have lived and worked in the area and know it very well and those who read articles from outside random extremist paranoid internet sites.
2. YOU are wrong.

Maybe we should take an IHD poll!

Oh, dear Cariad.
How valiantly you have stood up for my reputation. I, on the other hand, had laughed the whole thing off. True, my knowledge was insulted, but that is of little concern to me. As long as I know the truth of the matter, I'm not going to get my panties in a wad over what someone else thinks. 

Tell the boys that I miss them (you and Gwyn, too). We don't always get to see bears when we go to the mountains, but amazingly when Hanify came to visit (all the way from New Zealand before she died) we got to see a bear, too. I hold those two IHD visits very dear to my heart.

 

Aleta

[Weggy]

Let's start with your last comment that Jeane Kirkpatrick's opinion is meaningless. Where does that place your opinion? As the former ambassador to the UN, the issue of UN treaties is absolutely something that her opinion is of value.

I stated I don’t see how her opinion is relevant to this conversation because I clearly stated she did not have a good track record during Reagan’s administration (Grenada, Iran-Contra affair, etc). What matters for this discussion is your opinion. You can use a quote/paraphrase/summary of someone else’s idea, but you still have to support it with your own thoughts. You clearly stated “Jeane Kirkpatrick had a very strong opinion on this issue. It will suffice to hear her opinion on this very troubling issue.” However, you gave no reason why we should listen to Kirkpatrick’s words. Why is it important for us to know her opinion? Why does her opinion suffice to support your argument? Sure, some of us might know who she is because we dabble in politics or have a background in this field, but it is still up to you to show us. You got to do that leg work, not me or the reader.

Secondly, you are admitting that the UN did have influence on private property rights in the US with the Yellowstone/mining incident. The company in question had mined for decades and was highly regarded as a model company by the regulators. If you believe that the UN should have a voice in private property interests in the US, then you don't support sovereignty of the US which is right back to my original comment. I posed a question, that is all.

Thirdly, you are grossly in error to state that we could do whatever we wish in those areas declared World Heritage Sites. Sorry, but a company with a long history of mining practices was not allowed to continue operations on private property once the UN became involved. Once again, this was private property. That is significant and you should not dismiss this important case as you do. Nor should you fail to understand that the UN treaty is a substantial agreement. It is not just window dressing on our national parks system. Your synopsis of the episode is not accurate. Here is a much more detailed account of the undo influence of the UN on the outcome of this event.

http://nj.npri.org/nj97/06/protect.htm

Fourthly, the US established the first wilderness preservation acts and is the model for the rest of the world. There is no need for any further "protection" from external sources since we have already placed these areas for future generations to enjoy and done so in an elegant manner for over 100 years. In many ways, our national parks system is the envy of the world and it should remain completely under the power and control of the people of the United States, not in some UN committee.

I read the article you linked (http://nj.npri.org/nj97/06/protect.htm), but I think the major disconnect in this discussion is the fact our domestic groups used the UN as a tool to get their way. In no way did the UN act first on the Yellowstone issue. From your article, Paragraph 5 and 6: “But the advocacy groups had no intention of waiting that long. Instead, they found a new forum in which to challenge the proposal. Fourteen U.S. environmental advocacy groups, including the World Wildlife Fund, the Sierra Club and the National Parks and Conservation Association brought the World Heritage Committee into the dispute.” Clearly, the UN did not get involved with Yellowstone because the UN wanted to have authority over Yellowstone. It was the advocacy groups that involved the UN. If you have a problem with the fact these groups went around the laws in the US be angry at the groups. The UN did not take the first step.

The UN did not officialy win against the mining company. The company gave up because it didn’t want to fight a political battle. From your article (paragraph 12), “But Crown Butte saw the handwriting on the wall. Rather than try to defend its project and await the release of the draft EIS, it announced in fall,1996 that it was abandoning its effort to develop a mine in the Yellowstone area. The completed draft EIS was never officially released, but the conventional wisdom was that the mine would have had a minor environmental impact and the project would have been approved. Instead of fighting an environmental and political battle, which had expanded to include President Clinton and the United Nations, the company accepted a U.S. government offer to trade its mining claims there for others at another site to be determined.” The article states they could have won, but they gave up on the battle.

Lastly, the American Sovereignty Act is a bill placed in congress year after year that has had broad support in the House for many years but failed in the Senate. There is broad grass roots support for this bill  limiting the influence of UN treaties over American laws.

American Sovereignty Act (full text https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr75/text )is a bill that repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 as well as some other aspects related to the UN. There are two small sections that would be related to this discussion of the UN and world heritage sites (sec 7 & 8 ). However, it is no wonder it was never passed. It is only 7pages long without much detail. Also, it has broad support in the House? At least be truthful, it is still not past the committee (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr75#overview).  The 2009 version? It was just introduced (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1146). It has very little support.

[cariad]

A non-issue? Really?? Well don't tell that to the states who have passed sovereignty acts protecting against UN oversight as well as the congressional people who have tried to resume direct control over all of our lands.

I will try to restrain myself from telling anything to "the states". Yes, really!!!!!!!

But, no bother, I guess I am just a paranoid weirdo to ignore. In any case, have fun my dear making fun of this issue but who is the joke on really?

If you believe - or worse repeat - much of anything from the far right media, then the joke is most certainly on you.

My QUESTION to you still stands:

WHICH has the higher probability?
1. All of these other members from a wide range of political perspectives are wrong, including people who have lived and worked in the area and know it very well and those who read articles from outside random extremist paranoid internet sites.
2. YOU are wrong.

[cariad]

Oh, dear Cariad.
How valiantly you have stood up for my reputation. I, on the other hand, had laughed the whole thing off. True, my knowledge was insulted, but that is of little concern to me. As long as I know the truth of the matter, I'm not going to get my panties in a wad over what someone else thinks. 

Yay! So glad to hear you had a laugh, I might have known that would be your reaction. I wanted to be sure that everyone knew the truth of the matter and so I couldn't contain myself any longer and got sucked in to the most pointless game on IHD! But it's worth it because some statements should not be allowed to stand.

Tell the boys that I miss them (you and Gwyn, too). We don't always get to see bears when we go to the mountains, but amazingly when Hanify came to visit (all the way from New Zealand before she died) we got to see a bear, too. I hold those two IHD visits very dear to my heart.

 

Aleta

That is so sweet - I'm so glad you got to meet Hanify.

With a bit of luck we'll have the chance to all meet up again. Liot (Americans are allowed to call him Elliot, in fact he prefers it that way) has matured quite a bit as I'm sure you could have guessed, so I promise he won't grab Carl's med bottle next time! (Still cringe a bit - and laugh a little - when I think about wrestling it away from him....)   

[Hemodoc]

A non-issue? Really?? Well don't tell that to the states who have passed sovereignty acts protecting against UN oversight as well as the congressional people who have tried to resume direct control over all of our lands.

I will try to restrain myself from telling anything to "the states". Yes, really!!!!!!!

But, no bother, I guess I am just a paranoid weirdo to ignore. In any case, have fun my dear making fun of this issue but who is the joke on really?

If you believe - or worse repeat - much of anything from the far right media, then the joke is most certainly on you.

My QUESTION to you still stands:

WHICH has the higher probability?
1. All of these other members from a wide range of political perspectives are wrong, including people who have lived and worked in the area and know it very well and those who read articles from outside random extremist paranoid internet sites.
2. YOU are wrong.

I guess you didn't read the congressional bills, (are they random extremist paranoid internet sites) and Jeane Kirkpatrick. But anyway, thank you for demanding that I am wrong. So be it. If folks wish to give up their freedoms, so be it. Have a great day Cariad, always so good to hear from you.

[cariad]

But anyway, thank you for demanding that I am wrong.

I have no idea what this means, just that my QUESTION to you still stands:

WHICH has the higher probability?
1. All of these other members from a wide range of political perspectives are wrong, including people who have lived and worked in the area and know it very well and those who read articles from outside random extremist paranoid internet sites.
2. YOU are wrong.

[Hemodoc]

But anyway, thank you for demanding that I am wrong.

I have no idea what this means, just that my QUESTION to you still stands:

WHICH has the higher probability?
1. All of these other members from a wide range of political perspectives are wrong, including people who have lived and worked in the area and know it very well and those who read articles from outside random extremist paranoid internet sites.
2. YOU are wrong.

Yes, yes, Cariad, the congressional record is certainly "outside random extremist paranoid internet sites." Supporting documents IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD by Jeane Kirkpatrick likewise is NOT "outside random extremist paranoid internet sites." I would venture that you are quite wrong on this false allegation once again.

[Rerun]

I'm going to have to move this to political. 

Rerun, Moderator   

[Bill Peckham]

Here is the full question and answer (Kirkpatrick's letter is the appendix). It’s a letter former U.N. Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick wrote in 1999 in response to a letter from Congressman Bruce Vento . The Congressman was writing to follow up on the Ambassador’s previous testimony about the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. It is useful to understand the context of the quote.

IV. ``Should Congressional authorization be required for any international agreements/contracts which allow use of our national resources and public lands, such as mining or timber harvesting? If it is the case that your support for requiring Congressional authorization is limited only to those areas included in H.R. 883, please explain the  specific characteristics of ``international committees' dealing with conservation which makes them particularly threatening?''

First of all, as you know, any U.N. based agreements or contracts which allow use of our natural resources and public lands require various forms of authorization from our elected officials. In this particular case, the authorization must come from Congress. The Convention itself requires that ``the inclusion of a property in the World Heritage List requires the consent of the State governed.'' [Article II, Section 3] The State in question is the United States and its consent requires the consent of the people through their duly elected representatives in accordance with the Constitution. That means Congress, the body delegated the authority over land management by the Constitution. The ``American Land Sovereignty Protection Act'' is consistent with both U.S. and international law.

In the second part of your question, you ask what are the specific characteristics of ``international committees' dealing with conservation which makes them particularly threatening?'' My answer is, those committees which affect substantial interests of U.S. citizens. If American citizens have an interest in the conservation of a particular area, that decision should be made by Congress, the body delegated responsibility by the Constitution for making these decisions in full view of the American public. And if each decision requires consideration of costs and benefits to the property rights of individual voters affected, so be it. UNESCO committees are not competent to address the complex private property and public interest issues presented here. They have no interest in how their actions affect private U.S. citizens. I believe Congress should not abdicate its responsibilities for land management to international groups whose members have no concern for protecting individual property rights and American interests.

She is weighing in on an interbranch squabble that continues to this day. Right now, the Executive branch of government can nominate places for World Heritage site designation, Ambassador Kirkpatrick is supporting legislation that would require legislative branch approval before a nomination could be submitted. As you read the ambassador’s letter notice what she is not saying. She does not make the claim that we have lost any sovereignty by being a signatory on the World Heritage Convention. She is not advocating that the US withdraw from the World Heritage Convention. She does not make the claim that a World Heritage Convention designation result in the American People losing ownership of the designated land. Surely if she thought any of those things were true she would sound the alarm any chance she had.

Ambassador Kirkpatrick is advocating that rather than nominations for designation as a World Heritage Site being left up to the Secretary of the Interior (the Executive Branch), it should be the Congress that makes the nominations. So, um ok? Either way it would not limit UNESCO's or anyone else's ability to complain if something is identified as compromising the site.

Considering this legislation came up when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House but only garnered minimal support says a lot about how little this issue ranks as an actual problem.

[cariad]

Yes, yes, Cariad, the congressional record is certainly "outside random extremist paranoid internet sites." Supporting documents IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD by Jeane Kirkpatrick likewise is NOT "outside random extremist paranoid internet sites." I would venture that you are quite wrong on this false allegation once again.

Aaaaaaaand I have no idea what this means either, just that these sentences seem to hopelessly contradict each other.

I never made any statement about the congressional record, but certainly parsing documents, leaving out key information and hoping no one will take the time to look up the original, is definitely well within the domain of "random extremist paranoid internet sites". Those sites excel at this behaviour! (I remember you using this disingenuous tactic multiple times with Rules for Radicals)

Thank you, Bill, for taking the time to clarify because I certainly wasn't going to waste my time researching this, especially as Peter refuses to answer my simple question, which still stands:

WHICH has the higher probability?
1. All of these other members from a wide range of political perspectives are wrong, including people who have lived and worked in the area and know it very well and those who read articles from outside random extremist paranoid internet sites.
2. YOU are wrong.

[Hemodoc]

Yes, yes, Cariad, the congressional record is certainly "outside random extremist paranoid internet sites." Supporting documents IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD by Jeane Kirkpatrick likewise is NOT "outside random extremist paranoid internet sites." I would venture that you are quite wrong on this false allegation once again.

Aaaaaaaand I have no idea what this means either, just that these sentences seem to hopelessly contradict each other.

I never made any statement about the congressional record, but certainly parsing documents, leaving out key information and hoping no one will take the time to look up the original, is definitely well within the domain of "random extremist paranoid internet sites". Those sites excel at this behaviour! (I remember you using this disingenuous tactic multiple times with Rules for Radicals)

Thank you, Bill, for taking the time to clarify because I certainly wasn't going to waste my time researching this, especially as Peter refuses to answer my simple question, which still stands:

WHICH has the higher probability?
1. All of these other members from a wide range of political perspectives are wrong, including people who have lived and worked in the area and know it very well and those who read articles from outside random extremist paranoid internet sites.
2. YOU are wrong.

Too funny. Anyway have a great day.

[cariad]

Yes, yes, Cariad, the congressional record is certainly "outside random extremist paranoid internet sites." Supporting documents IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD by Jeane Kirkpatrick likewise is NOT "outside random extremist paranoid internet sites." I would venture that you are quite wrong on this false allegation once again.

Aaaaaaaand I have no idea what this means either, just that these sentences seem to hopelessly contradict each other.

I never made any statement about the congressional record, but certainly parsing documents, leaving out key information and hoping no one will take the time to look up the original, is definitely well within the domain of "random extremist paranoid internet sites". Those sites excel at this behaviour! (I remember you using this disingenuous tactic multiple times with Rules for Radicals)

Thank you, Bill, for taking the time to clarify because I certainly wasn't going to waste my time researching this, especially as Peter refuses to answer my simple question, which still stands:

WHICH has the higher probability?
1. All of these other members from a wide range of political perspectives are wrong, including people who have lived and worked in the area and know it very well and those who read articles from outside random extremist paranoid internet sites.
2. YOU are wrong.

Too funny. Anyway have a great day.

I notice you haven't addressed anything that Bill wrote.

And my question still stands!

[Simon Dog]

WHICH has the higher probability?
1. All of these other members from a wide range of political perspectives are wrong, including people who have lived and worked in the area and know it very well and those who read articles from outside random extremist paranoid internet sites.
2. YOU are wrong.

It really depends - are the sources of people from a "wide range of perspectives" a statistically valid sample, or did you just select ones who agreed with your position?   Alternatively put, would one be able to find an equal number people from a "wide range...." who hold a different position?

[cariad]

It really depends - are the sources of people from a "wide range of perspectives" a statistically valid sample, or did you just select ones who agreed with your position?   Alternatively put, would one be able to find an equal number people from a "wide range...." who hold a different position?

It was a nonsense question to prove a point. How long is a piece of string?

[Hemodoc]

It really depends - are the sources of people from a "wide range of perspectives" a statistically valid sample, or did you just select ones who agreed with your position?   Alternatively put, would one be able to find an equal number people from a "wide range...." who hold a different position?

It was a nonsense question to prove a point. How long is a piece of string?

Yes, it is a nonsense question, but it fails to prove any worthy point since it is based on false premises. Go figure.

[cariad]

It really depends - are the sources of people from a "wide range of perspectives" a statistically valid sample, or did you just select ones who agreed with your position?   Alternatively put, would one be able to find an equal number people from a "wide range...." who hold a different position?

It was a nonsense question to prove a point. How long is a piece of string?

Yes, it is a nonsense question, but it fails to prove any worthy point since it is based on false premises. Go figure.

I didn't expect you to comprehend the point I was making, and I was right.

[noahvale]

**

[Hemodoc]

Here is the thing.  Even though you just told him that you are not reading his dribble he cannot let anyone have the last word.  No matter how much he is proved wrong.  Let us see if he is mature enough to let it go or will he be an immature man-child.  I already know the answer. 

Right again, Marc. I am shaking my head in disbelief.

 From above - cariad ---> Hemodoc 

I didn't expect you to comprehend the point I was making, and I was right.

Looks like Hemodoc doesn't have a lock on "needing the last word."   {snirt}

No problem Noahvale, it seems that they would rather focus on various forms of insults instead of the issue at hand. It might be nice some day to have an actual debate of various issues on IHD political sections, but I won't hold my breath.

Lastly, I have noticed a great deal of projection on her part as well in several different posts as you are pointing out quite elegantly. Go figure, I guess Freud still matters.

[MooseMom]

I have tried REALLY HARD to have interesting discussions/illuminating debates here on IHD, but I can't put up with the snide remarks and general disrespect.  So I'm leaving in a huff of moral superiority.   

[cariad]

Here is the thing.  Even though you just told him that you are not reading his dribble he cannot let anyone have the last word.  No matter how much he is proved wrong.  Let us see if he is mature enough to let it go or will he be an immature man-child.  I already know the answer. 

Right again, Marc. I am shaking my head in disbelief.

 From above - cariad ---> Hemodoc 

I didn't expect you to comprehend the point I was making, and I was right.

Looks like Hemodoc doesn't have a lock on "needing the last word."   {snirt}

Yes, I responded to posts addressed to me. You, however, Noahvale, came barging back here for no other purpose than to have a go at me. You even had to make just one more comment on a locked thread. http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=29847.msg470832#msg470832 Locked threads tend to be the mods way of saying "everyone let it go and move on." *Most* members are able to do just that.

[cariad]

No problem Noahvale, it seems that they would rather focus on various forms of insults instead of the issue at hand. It might be nice some day to have an actual debate of various issues on IHD political sections, but I won't hold my breath.

You supposedly want to debate the issues that have come up in this thread, yet you refuse to address what Bill wrote about your disingenuous quoting of Jeane Kirkpatrick.

Lastly, I have noticed a great deal of projection on her part as well in several different posts as you are pointing out quite elegantly. Go figure, I guess Freud still matters.

Again, I have NO idea what you are trying to say here and do not see how anything noahvale wrote has thing one to do with projection. That would be you *projecting*, as it were, your hopes and intentions onto his posts.

It must be truly frustrating to you to have a woman on here who isn't afraid to speak up for herself, doesn't look to you for permission to read and enjoy books or discuss topics, and just generally doesn't know her place.

You actually, believe it or not, came very close to grasping the point I was making when you wrote this:

Yes, it is a nonsense question, but it fails to prove any worthy point since it is based on false premises. Go figure.

See, you too wrote a nonsense question based on false premises and then repeatedly tried to badger Aleta into answering it and make an issue of the fact that she refused to dignify your bullying with a reply.

So why don't you address what Bill wrote since suddenly it is all about "the issues" to you?

[Hemodoc]

Wow, Cariad, that is over the top. But that is your way.

Not much to state to Bill since Jeanne Kirkpatricks comments speak all for by herself quite well. Bill didn't capture her sentiments well at all, but all are free to compare Bill's statements to hers and draw their own conclusions.

BTW, my wife is about the most independent women I have ever known and that is after my very independent mother is considered. Wow, over the top, but have fun insulting instead of debating. I am sure that both would consider your veiled accusations quite insulting since both are a significant part of my life. That kind of lines up with all the false allegations of racism against me in times past. Too funny Cariad, but I won't show it to my wife since the insult is actually directed at her when you get right down to it. Maybe you could insult my mother as well while you are at it.

P.S. why do you assume you were not part of getting that thread locked, Hmmmm?

In any case, keep it up and this thread will be locked soon as well I suspect.

If you ever wish to debate the issues, let me know Cariad.