View Full Version : The War, The President, and Everything Else
spudracer
10-24-06, 07:52 PM
Taking this from the shoutbox to the thread...
Basically, the conversation is going on regarding the war in Iraq, and what Bush is NOT doing about it.
Keep it toned down guys, we all know that talking politics gets people heated, but let's think before we type kiddos!
What articles are you reading, exactly? Because none of the ones I've read quote Bush as saying he's "not a stay the course guy," nor do any of them say that the general policy has changed.
Well...
It seems the Iraqis are now getting told they've gotta sort out 'their own' mess. That strikes me as something of a policy shift...
US commanders spell out timeline for Iraqi transition (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2418932,00.html)
Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq who is regarded as the key dealmaker in Iraqi politics, and General George Casey both said that the war had evolved from an insurgency directed against the US-led occupation to a more complicated, sectarian conflict which it was up to Iraqis to solve.
General Casey said the bombing of al-Askari Shia shrine in Samarra in January this year and subsequent explosion of internecine violence between Sunnis and Shias had ushered in a "much more complex environment and one that will be resolved primarily by Iraqis with our full support".
...
"We are about 75 per cent of the way through a three-step process in building those forces. It is going to take another 12 to 18 months or so till I believe the Iraqi security forces are completely capable of taking over responsiblity for their own security —and that will still be coupled with [i]some level of support from us," [General Casey] said.
That sounds like we're gonna see one of two 'policy-progressions' here:
The 'Cut and sneak away slowly' one.
Or, more likely...
The 'Stay the course, by jogging at the back' approach - (IE US forces scale-down but stay on hand - altho mainly staying inside their potentially-permenant bases to avoid the guerilla warfare).
Either way, it's hard to deny that we're preparing to step back and 'let' the Iraqis deal with the brunt of the mess that we've made.
(Anyone care to deny that we made it? Or that it's still a big mess?)
Piddzilla
10-25-06, 06:37 AM
A pretty wide thread title there, Spud. ;)
Hmm... Seems like I should read the shouts in the box more regularly.
Well, what more is there to say about Bush... Everyone who was in favour of the war in Iraq claimed that it was a necessary step in the war against terror. It would give us a safer and more secure world. I have always been of the opinion that the American tactics and the politics that Bush stands for would lead to the opposite, something I have discussed a lot on this site. And I believe I've been right, so far.
spudracer
10-25-06, 08:03 AM
A pretty wide thread title there, Spud. ;)
Well, somewhere down the line, we could probably merge all the politics threads together as much as they all are sounding the same..
Here's what I think on the situation in Iraq. I think at first, our intentions were a little outrageous, but it worked for the first couple of years. Now that it's obvious Iraq doesn't want help anymore, we should pull out. I mean, when the news reports say that the problems are actually getting worse, that can only mean one thing, the U.S. isn't wanted anymore.
I've got friends over there, I think that everyone knows I'm in the military, I was over there for 6 months before, and while I wasn't on land during that time, it was a nerve-racking time.
If Bush chooses to keep them over there longer (which he's already leaning towards), who else doesn't see that this will just make matters worse? When their missions went from taking down insurgents to avoiding suicide bombers, looking for missing soldiers, etc., I think it's safe to say that it's more of a cat and mouse game now. It's always been a cat and mouse game, but now, we're the mouse.
I'm all for war if it's required to get the job done, but I'm not for keeping people away from their families and basically causing a genocide on American troops by keeping them in a location where they have no real purpose other than to keep the peace. I said this in the Shoutbox yesterday and I'll say it again, WE'RE NOT RENT-A-COPS!!!
Piddzilla
10-25-06, 05:34 PM
WE'RE NOT RENT-A-COPS!!!
Perfectly understandable. I certainly would not want to go and fight in a country for reasons unclear to me. But isn't that a risk you should be aware of when you join the US military? America, it seems to me, is in a way built on warfare. The nation is on a regular basis involved in military conflicts of various scales but the wars are never fought on American ground. In a way, and I certainly don't mean to be offensive and I understand your positon fully, but in a way it sounds a bit like it was okay to go to Iraq "to kick some ass" for a month or so, but when American soldiers are beginning to die by the thousands, then it's not that much fun anymore. Not saying that you personally are saying exactly that, but the general public opinion in America, the way it comes out in media over here, seems to be leaning towards that. But I mean, it's either war, or it's not. Almost 3.000 American soldiers have died in the war, which is terrible. Something between 300.000 and 900.000 (depending on who you're asking) Iraqis have died during the same time. USA were of the opinion that there was a job to be done in Iraq and that they were the ones to get it done, even if others thought differently. Again, wanting to get out is totally understandable, but now, unlike before, America actually has some responsibility in this situation. And I don't think it would be fair to anybody to simply leave now. That the troops feel unwanted and don't see the meaning in them being there is as understandable as the Iraqis not wanting them there. It's an evil circle, I'm sure. War, even though I've never experienced it, sure must suck.
the conversation is going on regarding the war in Iraq, and what Bush is NOT doing about it.
At this point, it is a no-win situation. I do not mean about the war, but for Bush. Regardless of the outcome he will be blasted for us staying there or he will smeared for pulling out. I for one hope make it a gradual pull out and not have some deadline for complete removal. Complete withdrawl may never be possible. I would like to make one thing clear though: Most Iraqi's welcome us there and the aid given is amazing, it is overlooked in the shadow of war, but many lives have been helped. Does the pros outweigh the cons? In the long run I think it will, but I can certainly admit that I do not know.
spudracer
10-25-06, 08:56 PM
I had a nice long reply, and I lost my connection to the net. I'll be back later to try and touch on everything I was trying to.
spudracer
10-27-06, 08:02 AM
I haven't forgotten about this, just have been real busy.
Piddzilla
10-29-06, 04:17 PM
Since this post is kind of political and kind of about everything else I thought I would post a little something about Fidel in here.
I just watched the news and Fidel Castro apparently has made an appearence to silence the rumours of his alledged death. Judging by the footage the rumours weren't completely wrong. I saw Oliver Stone's "Looking for Fidel" (2004) not long ago and in that one, as in Commandante (2003), the almost 80-year old dictator looked fit and healthy. In this news segment he looked really old and sick. He reminded me of those people I've seen that suffer from Ahlzeimer's disease.
So, I figure that Castro will die within a considerably near future. What do you think will happen with Cuba and its relations to USA and the rest of the world after Castro's gone? His brother Raul is expected to take over after Fidel's death but is nothing compared to Fidel in terms of charisma.
Raul is expected to take over after Fidel's death but is nothing compared to Fidel in terms of charisma.
One of two things will probably happen:
1- nothing really different..staus quo..etc..................
2- Big change.....we here in the U.S. need to watch out..and we need to watch China..yep we do.
Piddzilla
10-30-06, 06:01 AM
One of two things will probably happen:
1- nothing really different..staus quo..etc..................
2- Big change.....we here in the U.S. need to watch out..and we need to watch China..yep we do.
?
Really? I agree with the possibility of number one, but can you explain why you think you will have to watch out when Castro's dead? What are you afraid of? And China. Is it their economic power or their military power you're afraid of? Because the relations between USA and China are pretty good, aren't they? China's economy is exploding and in some aspects the most capitalist system on Earth. Americans should adore China - not fear it.
About Cuba. I think Castro for older generations is still an icon, a living legend, the rebel who freed them from the corrupt regime that was before 1959. But when Castro dies and the glorious revolution with him, I think it will be very hard for the government to stop the civil rights movement and the demands for democracy and freedom of speech in Cuba. I don't think he has the same support among the young Cubans. At the same time I think the Cubans will be in favour of some kind of social democratic system, since Castro actually have managed to make some of his socialist visions work in practice. When Castro dies I also think the relations with USA will become warmer and Cuba will be able to develop. I'm an optimist.
?
Really? I agree with the possibility of number one, but can you explain why you think you will have to watch out when Castro's dead? What are you afraid of? And China. Is it their economic power or their military power you're afraid of? Because the relations between USA and China are pretty good, aren't they? China's economy is exploding and in some aspects the most capitalist system on Earth. Americans should adore China - not fear it.
Sure it all looks good on the surface, and if things get ugly in Korea, more so than they are now, China will be a big player in deciding what happens. It is more of a cause and effect that I am worried about. Two years from now we will have a weak president in office, unless something changes and the upcoming mid-term elections are going to be a big boost in undermining our war on terror. And I am mot talking about Iraq. Oh well just my thoughts.
Piddzilla
10-31-06, 05:45 AM
I think the current president has a lot to do with the fear you seem to be feeling towards the rest of the world. He, if anyone, has undermined the possibilities for a more peaceful world and instead helped to increase aggressiveness, suspiciousness and fear in people all around the world. I am experiencing a stronger extremism, a stronger anti-americanism, a stronger anti-islamism and a stronger xenophobia in general, now more than ever. George W. Bush stands for the hard line and the keep-on-exploiting-the-3rd-World-and-****-the-environment line. For those who like it when the world feels like a ticking bomb, he's the man. If political skills equals weakness then, yes, you guys are running the risk of having a weak president in a two years. Two very long years.
China, as I said, has got the world's fastest growing economy attracting investors from all over the world, not least from USA. They are hosting the Olympics in two years. They have the eyes of the world of them. There is no way in hell they would scare off all those rich westerners by rattling their nukes. And without China I believe, thanks to Bush's anti-diplomacy and other things, we will get nowhere with the North Koreans.
I think the current president has a lot to do with the fear you seem to be feeling towards the rest of the world. He, if anyone, has undermined the possibilities for a more peaceful world and instead helped to increase aggressiveness, suspiciousness and fear in people all around the world.
I just do not understand exatly when the definition of diplomacy became: If they ignore resolutions or international law that they themselves agreed too then we will do nothing but talk about it untill.....until when? I think you give too much credit to Bush, the state the world is in now took a long time to achieve, long before Bush and long before Clinton. I also think 911 helped a bit, of course some say thats Bush's fault too :rolleyes: ;) .
Officer 663
10-31-06, 02:14 PM
But, but...
We were NEVER stay the course, according to the illustrious Mr. Bush.
Now, now. You'll make poor Tony Snow headbutt his microphones again.
I think the strategy was to tactically score an own-goal. Or something.
Piddzilla
11-01-06, 08:25 AM
I just do not understand exatly when the definition of diplomacy became: If they ignore resolutions or international law that they themselves agreed too then we will do nothing but talk about it untill.....until when? I think you give too much credit to Bush, the state the world is in now took a long time to achieve, long before Bush and long before Clinton. I also think 911 helped a bit, of course some say thats Bush's fault too :rolleyes: ;) .
I think the definition of America as the Great Satan is clearer and shared by more people than in a long time. I think that anti-american dictatorships are sitting safer in their seats thanks to Bush and his politics because they can canalize people's dissatisfaction on America instead of their own leadership. Diplomacy can mean talking to your enemy and finding out how he thinks and figure out what he will do next. It also means that when it's possible you can reach understandings that will be the foundation of progress later on. By not talking at all to North Korea it means they feel the isolation and decides to proceed with their nuke programs out of fear of the powerful enemy that is USA.
I'm not blaming Bush for everything that is wrong in this world, even if his politics is a continuation of the kind of politics that is the source of a lot that is wrong with this world. I am certainly not blaming him for 9-11. But I do believe his actions after 9-11 have been clumsy to say the least.
Piddzilla
11-10-06, 08:25 AM
I've been away for a few days and I was surprised to find exactly zero (0) posts about the American Congress election when I came back. Here in Sweden, where we follow American politics pretty closely, it's been all over the news for weeks and especially now when it's clear that the Democrats won the majority in both houses. And then Rumsfeld had to go.
I'm interested in everyone's thoughts about this. What do you think will be the outcome from this? Will anything be different? What effect do you think this will have on the presidential election in two years?
Heh, well, it did look like a likely outcome. Plus you can't go recount crazy with all these 'no paper trail' e-voting set-ups now. (Hence the quietness after the last election too, i suspects ;)).
The Dems don't look like they're gonna go 'impeach crazy' (just yet) which is probably a good thing. They'll probably play nastier closer to election time tho.
On an international front, we might see more overt support for multilateral global warming initiatives with a Dem-leaning House etc. Possibly other 'bridge rebuilding' stuff too. So i'm told.
Big topic, prepare for a big reply...
I'm going to lay my cards on the table upfront and say that I am no fan of Bush. Not that anyone would be surprised by that, but just the same, in the nature of full disclosure...
The notion of Iraq being a mistake is one for historians to debate at this point in time, its done, where do we go from here?
Unfortunately there is no "exit strategy" that would guarantee stability in the region or in Iraq itself. There is too much noise in the region to hear anything else but chaos. The situation in Iran as well as the Palestinian/Israeli conflict weigh heavily on the minds and hearts of every Arab. Not to mention the old ethnic conflicts that a strong and brutal dictator kept in check (which was part of the reason we supported him in the first place) with an iron hand. removing Saddam was a good thing, the way he was removed was less so.
Resolving the situation in Israel is the key factor in beginning the peaceful transition to a less war-torn middle east. I have always felt this, as insignificant as the land mass is the symbolic implications are directly inversely proportionate. The simple fact that we have not taken a vital role in this process since Clinton (one of the things, that if history is kind, he will be fondly remembered for) is the most (at least on the aforementioned symbolic level) significant reason we have failed to capture the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. I'm not talking about a resolution to an age old conflict, I'm talking about progression towards peaceful coexistence.
On China, the great dichotomy in China at the moment, I believe, is the fact that the Tiananmen Square mentality has faded with the economic boom...at least on the surface. Repression is still at an all time high, Human Rights Watch has a HUGE list of political prisoners and their reasons for imprisonment. They want democracy, which unfortunately would completely destabilize the Chinese economy.
The irony that the most robust capitalist system in the world right now is being run by one of the most socially repressive governments in the industrialized world is unfortunately lost on most Americans. The further irony that China has been the recipient of so much help in the building of their economy, by industry and through the ridiculous Clinton "most favored nation" status. Yet with all this they have a crucial role in the development of the region in which they lie. And they really want nothing to do with any other nation except trade, culturally Hong Kong is China's saving grace.
China is a particularly thorny animal. As I stated in the other thread, I believe that China is on an incredibly dangerous path. Economically they are at the top of their game, but the minor surface cultural changes, and the incredible amount of environmental degradation occurring within the major cities, is a time bomb waiting to go off. Best case scenario, they realize that the rate of growth in the country is far too high, far too fast to support itself and then the vital social and economic reforms are realized. Worst case, there is a massive agrarian revolt, ethnic tensions in the outlying regions explode and the ruling class has no choice but to clamp down even harder, and we have something similar to the current situation in Russia. Capitalism breeds corruption as Socialism breeds a malaise like contentment, as well as resentment in the intelligentsia. China has tasted capitalism and the result of a collapse would be the fast development of a black market economy massive organized crime and the same worries about nuclear materials gone missing. I hope for some form of the former.
As far as Cuba is concerned. I really can't see why any sort of barrier, cultural or economic still exists. We have friendly relations with China for F***s sake! The main difference is that there isn't a huge lobby concentrated in a very powerful congressional district that HATES this man and all that he stands for. The are the friends and family of landowners (who did plenty of exploiting of their own under Batista) who resent Castro for nationalizing all private property. If the Iraqi sanctions hurt the Iraqi people as some of the more conservative elements of our government insisted as part of their campaign to war, the abject poverty in some parts of Cuba is surely a human rights abuse of its own. I don't like Castro, I don't believe that the state should have complete control over every aspect of daily life, it is anathema to freedom. But as far as most world dictators go, he is certainly the lesser especially considering some that we have supported.
I've been away for a few days and I was surprised to find exactly zero (0) posts about the American Congress election when I came back. Here in Sweden, where we follow American politics pretty closely, it's been all over the news for weeks and especially now when it's clear that the Democrats won the majority in both houses. And then Rumsfeld had to go.
I'm interested in everyone's thoughts about this. What do you think will be the outcome from this? Will anything be different? What effect do you think this will have on the presidential election in two years?
I left a minor jab at that in a non-political thread.
You know, after so many years of Republican dominance it all seems like a dream. I keep pinching myself thinking "did that really happen?" I'm no fan of political parties, especially when the only two viable parties keep trying to out-do each other in the "culture war." I believe in a vital, multiparty system that represents all shades of the spectrum. A pipe dream for sure, but a dream nonetheless.
The immediate outcome is too far off for me to see through the haze of the waking dream. I'm not sure anything the Dems propose will fly without some serious kibitzing and a lot of compromise. Is this a good thing? My reactionary side says hell no, my rational side saw what happened to the contract with America, how the president at the time claimed responsibility for what did pass and the rest became the stuff of legend.
As far as Rumsfeld, boy howdy, where to start. Lets just say that Bush knew full well that if the dems took control Mr Rumsfeld would be emasculated, the smart thing was to gracefully step aside, and they both did the smart thing. The thing was, IMO, that nobody in the GOP expected to lose when the famous "decider" spiel was given.
Piddzilla
11-14-06, 06:43 AM
I left a minor jab at that in a non-political thread.
You know, after so many years of Republican dominance it all seems like a dream. I keep pinching myself thinking "did that really happen?" I'm no fan of political parties, especially when the only two viable parties keep trying to out-do each other in the "culture war." I believe in a vital, multiparty system that represents all shades of the spectrum. A pipe dream for sure, but a dream nonetheless.
Yeah, I've always felt that in reality having only two parties to choose from must be very unsatisfying.
This morning I read that Giuliani wants to run for president. I have to admit that I don't know too much about his political stance. He's kind of a New Yorkified republican, right? Is he a good candidate, would you say?
Is it possible for a president to appoint ministers and secretaries from both parties? I guess it's possible, but is it likely? What about if Hillary won and appointed Obama her vice president, Colin Powell was let back in as secretary of state, John Edwards secretary of justice, John McCain secretary of defense and Al Gore was given the environmental issues? Or perhaps the job as UN Ambassador.
He is a relative moderate. Of course considering the serious rightward leanings of the Republican party, I would classify him as a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, which puts him pretty squarely middle-right.
Honestly I think he would actually make a decent president. There are things about him that I don't like, his management style for one, but he has shown great grace under pressure. I do believe he will ride on the coattails of 9/11 if he does decide to run, and depending upon exactly how much that is still a part of the American consciousness, it will be a major aspect of his campaign.
I do think that he will have to appeal to the middle, and he already has that in his favor. He will be tough to beat in the next election if he decides to run. The coolest thing about his possible candidacy would be the fact that he would be the first truly ethnic Italian-American president. And only the second Catholic, any progress is good progress.
You know what the sad thing is, I cannot think for the life of me, of a viable candidate from the democratic side. Hillary is far too polarizing and I just don't like her as President. Her views are muddled and she carries too much baggage. The Republicans seem to be dead set on promoting her for this very reason, I think its so funny that the spin-doctors have spent so much time promoting her "agenda" and her potential candidacy that they have burned this idea into the American consciousness.
So many Dems have been shot in the foot by remarks or actions amplified beyond belief in the media. But as the last election proved, that kind of politics only works to distract when the party in question is on top. It gives me hope that the "politics of personal destruction" has left a bad taste in the mouths of many voters.
Add to that the continuing failings of evangelicals and their supporters and you have a weakened power base. I think it is a matter of course that those who shout the loudest in favor of "values politics" are the ones with so much to hide. This is true on both sides, Jessie Jackson and Bill Cosby to name two random names, have been outspoken critics of African American "culture" and have both been felled in a way by scandals involving out of wedlock children and extramarital sex.
I would love to see a Giuliani/Lieberman or Giuliani/Powell bid, I honestly believe either combination would be as unbeatable as it is groundbreaking.
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
11-23-06, 01:43 AM
There's always going to be war. It's how history decides what's right.
Piddzilla
11-23-06, 05:16 AM
There's always going to be war. It's how history decides what's right.
Now you'll have to elaborate a bit here.
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
11-23-06, 06:26 AM
Now you'll have to elaborate a bit here.
If there's an issue where two sides can't agree who's right and they end up fighting, the winner gets to walk away and say they're right. They might have to defend that with more fighting but until they lose, they're right - in theory. Also, I think more modern countries, like the U.S., want immediate results. We'd (We'd, being used loosely) would like to think everything can be settled with words and that a half-hour sit down with Dr. Phil would fix problems and have everyone walk away satisfied when in reality the person with the backyard that has the crater caused by a mortor is less likely to want to sit down and talk it out.
Bit of a side note: Why is American military numbers made public for all the world to see? I mean should there not be some sort of "national interest" law/rule/bill that says our troop numbers and equipment numbers and our "dates of withdrawal/reenforcement be kept secret? Seriously, be against the Iraqi war or for it, our and every nations military "moves" should be kept secret during a time of war.............or am I wrong? Do we not endanger our own when we publicize this information?
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
04-01-07, 03:51 PM
Bit of a side note: Why is American military numbers made public for all the world to see? I mean should there not be some sort of "national interest" law/rule/bill that says our troop numbers and equipment numbers and our "dates of withdrawal/reenforcement be kept secret? Seriously, be against the Iraqi war or for it, our and every nations military "moves" should be kept secret during a time of war.............or am I wrong? Do we not endanger our own when we publicize this information?
I think having a set date to withdraw is a bad idea. I couldn't imagine trying to fight an enemy that new I'd be leaving on Tuesday. I think letting people know how large our military is is a good idea. Sort of a mutual assured destruction thing.
I don't think the public knows too much, but sometimes I think they think they do.
Piddzilla
04-01-07, 06:23 PM
I pretty sure the public knows just about as much as the US military wants it to know. And as Pimp sniffed at, why rattle your nukes if you don't want the boogie men to know about them.
Krackalackin
04-07-07, 02:40 AM
I'll make it short and sweet because I've talked about this in length through other chanells. We've screwed up a lot of things regarding this war but we have to win. Plain and simple. If we do not win, it's the beginning of the end of the united states.
...we have to win. Plain and simple. If we do not win, it's the beginning of the end of the united states.
Well, the folk in charge realize this, too. They won't allow for a loss.
What we really need to worry about is Iran...
For the first time in my life I feel that my own country has let me down. I think "we" have forgotten where we have come from. Sure some can say America thrived and established itself on the backs of slaves, or that we stole land and lives from Native Indians, but I say that even though this may be true, look at what we have become: Anyone of any race of any background can succeed in the U.S. There are no limits to what "one" can achieve in the United States of America. I am not saying that we did not get to this point without suffering, certainly a lot have suffered, but instead of wallowing in pity for those before us we should rejoice at what "they" have sacrificed, and think about what dreams they (our great grandmothers and grandfathers, ancestors, fellow peoples) have let go so that ours may come to fruition so that we could become one and hold hands like those guys in the coke commercial. Hate Bush all you want, hate republicans or democrats 'till your heart explodes, hate the war or support it, but please do not hate America, because for better or for worse, if you are an American, please understand the sacrifice that those before us have endured and support the growth of this great country not the demise of it.
John McClane
04-21-07, 01:02 AM
Do you wanna know the best way to win a war? Just don't start one. ;)
Do you wanna know the best way to win a war? Just don't start one. ;)
Do not kill children with mustard gas and cut off their ears with dull knives first and then okay I might not start one.??? Mr. SaddamnuBastard!!!
Equilibrium
04-24-07, 08:33 PM
In a nutshell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmP8Bgof6KE
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
04-24-07, 08:50 PM
There's a lot of crap I don't agree with in that video but the motion graphics were done really well.
In a nutshell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmP8Bgof6KE
Yeah thats it none of you matter unless you are American, France is next, yep. :rolleyes:
John McClane
04-25-07, 04:20 PM
Do not kill children with mustard gas and cut off their ears with dull knives first and then okay I might not start one.??? Mr. SaddamnuBastard!!!And after we're done in Iraq we can go to Sudan. And then after that we can go to Iran. And then after.... And then after that.... And then after that....
And after we're done in Iraq we can go to Sudan. And then after that we can go to Iran. And then after.... And then after that.... And then after that....
So we should do nothing about these countries you mention? Is it okay for there to be a nuclear capable Iran? The U.N. doesnt think so, but they will never do anything about it other than unexecuted sanctions. I hope sanctions do work, but if they do not then what? It is easy to be against something, but hard to offer another option. So what if Iran does ignore the U.N. John? what?what shold be done? What are the options? Why are these countries Sudan and Iran mentioned by you? Because they are great places to live and raise a family? I mean you do not mention Canada, or Australia or even Russia. Why not? And who are the countries that fall into to your after that and than after that category. N. Korea, Cuba, China, Mexico?
I was for the war mainly to see Saddam removed, but how could we just leave after taking him out? I want to see another feasible option than military action in the future, but is there one in all cases? If so what is it? Certainly do not mention the U.N. not many have faith in them anymore.
John McClane
04-25-07, 07:46 PM
The question is not "what do we do," but when does it ever end?
Monkeypunch
04-25-07, 07:56 PM
The question is not "what do we do," but when does it ever end?
It never does. Too much money to be made keeping the war machine rolling!
The question is not "what do we do," but when does it ever end?
Okay then... when does it end? What should we do to acehive this goal?
John McClane
04-25-07, 08:19 PM
Okay then... when does it end? What should we do to acehive this goal?I don't know. I'm not a political scientist or a geopolitics expert. I do know, however, that the president's view is a minority in this country at the moment.
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
04-26-07, 02:52 AM
I don't know. I'm not a political scientist or a geopolitics expert. I do know, however, that the president's view is a minority in this country at the moment.
Just saying his view is in the minority doesn't mean anything. At one point people who weren't racist were in the minority. People that wanted women to vote were in the minority. Unless you're able to expand on that you're views are nothing more than a mindless hum set on repeat.
Sexy Celebrity
05-11-07, 05:22 PM
Too many people are dying in Iraq....
In just 2007:
May: http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor_may_2007.html
April: http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor_april_2007.html
March: http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor_march_2007.html
February: http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor_february_2007.html
January: http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor_january_2007.html
And so on, and so on, and so on....
John McClane
05-11-07, 09:34 PM
Just saying his view is in the minority doesn't mean anything.Actually, it says a lot. Besides, you can't compare the two (war support and women's vote/non-racist). Women's vote was an obvious step in the right direction, non-racists were obviously in the right. Supporting a war doesn't come into either of the categories of right or wrong. Unless there's obviously a lot of evil going on, of course. And that isn't the case here. So yea, his view being a minority has a lot to do with the issue, actually.
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
05-11-07, 10:06 PM
Actually, it says a lot. Besides, you can't compare the two (war support and women's vote/non-racist). Women's vote was an obvious step in the right direction, non-racists were obviously in the right. Supporting a war doesn't come into either of the categories of right or wrong. Unless there's obviously a lot of evil going on, of course. And that isn't the case here. So yea, his view being a minority has a lot to do with the issue, actually.
Then it's a matter of opinion. I believe that this war is a step in the right direction. I wouldn't want to be a part of something that was capable of helping and chose not to. Besides, there was A LOT of evil going on and I'm glad multiple countries decided that enough was enough. As for when "it" will ever end, the answer is never. There will always be war. Some people like to think that their privileged way of life is something that's normal. It's not. It's something you have to protect and fight for.
I'm tired of this crap. No more dodge ball because kids get picked on, no more jungle gyms because they're dangerous, no more red ink to correct papers because it makes people feel sad... go ahead and keep pushing this pussy sh_t forward. Have you seen Demolition Man? I swear to god that's the democrats ultimate goal.
John McClane
05-11-07, 10:12 PM
Then it's a matter of opinion.And that's exactly why his view being a minority is relevant.
Without going into detail (because most of those against the war do not wanna give any detailed solutions so why should I bother) The total deaths in Iraq the decade before the war far outnumber what they will be the decade after it started. Regardless it is a mess now and with the Bush haters it has gotten so bad that when we foil a plot to kill servicemen/women here in the states it is pretty much ignored.
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
05-11-07, 11:52 PM
And that's exactly why his view being a minority is relevant.
Pretend the majority of the U.S. supported the current administration and the current situation - would you're opinion of its decisions be different?
I don't plan on following the majority just because they're the majority and think you'd be a fool for doing so.
John McClane
05-12-07, 12:02 AM
Pretend the majority of the U.S. supported the current administration and the current situation - would you're opinion of its decisions be different?We/I already did.
I don't plan on following the majority just because they're the majority and think you'd be a fool for doing so.It's funny, people don't follow the majority just because their a majority. However, as soon as they are viewed/proved right people step in line right quick yet, it's not following the majority.
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
05-12-07, 12:34 AM
We/I already did.
Then entertain me with a simple answer. Would you climb aboard if there were more people supporting the administration? It's not a difficult question.
It's funny, people don't follow the majority just because their a majority. However, as soon as they are viewed/proved right people step in line right quick yet, it's not following the majority.
What? You'll need to expand on that. I'm assuming you're saying that I'm going against the majority just because it's the majority. If that's the case, you're wrong.
John McClane
05-12-07, 12:37 AM
Then entertain me with a simple answer. Would you climb aboard if there were more people supporting the administration? It's not a difficult question.Would I support us staying over there? You betcha.
What? You'll need to expand on that. I'm assuming you're saying that I'm going against the majority just because it's the majority. If that's the case, you're wrong.No, I'm saying that when the majority is viewed as right most people agree/follow them. Only, it's not following the majority. I wasn't saying anything about you but, just how odd the entire majority/minority thing can be.
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
05-12-07, 12:58 AM
Would I support us staying over there? You betcha.
I don't get this. Why wouldn't you stick to something you believe in and pursue it with or without support? I'd be more determined to complete something if people jumped out of my boat and then said I was stupid. I'd come sailing back and drop off some lame ass life preservers while I was eating some exotic fish that I caught while I was celebrating my achievement - bu that's just me.
No, I'm saying that when the majority is viewed as right most people agree/follow them. Only, it's not following the majority. I wasn't saying anything about you but, just how odd the entire majority/minority thing can be.
Agreed. I do think it's retarded when people bash the majority and support a minority just because there's more against less. It's dumb.
John McClane
05-12-07, 10:17 AM
I don't get this. Why wouldn't you stick to something you believe in and pursue it with or without support? I'd be more determined to complete something if people jumped out of my boat and then said I was stupid. I'd come sailing back and drop off some lame ass life preservers while I was eating some exotic fish that I caught while I was celebrating my achievement - bu that's just me.Well, with conflicts such as these minorities against the war really have no power. You saw what happened with Vietnam, a minority quickly turned into a majority. Eventually, we pulled out of there. It's really only a matter of time before the majority of this country gets their way. I foresee a future for Iraq much like Vietnam. Then again, I could just be cynical.
But anyhow, I think I'm done in this thread. I was just trying to take the edge off of my nervousness (prom) by thinking about something else.
Piddzilla
05-13-07, 09:40 AM
Without going into detail (because most of those against the war do not wanna give any detailed solutions so why should I bother) The total deaths in Iraq the decade before the war far outnumber what they will be the decade after it started. Regardless it is a mess now and with the Bush haters it has gotten so bad that when we foil a plot to kill servicemen/women here in the states it is pretty much ignored.
I think the big problem with the war in Iraq is that neither side has got a solution to the mess, regardless if you're for the war or against it. However, it's always interesting to hear about why anyone thinks the war is a good thing because I didn't understand the reasons before the invasion and I don't understand them now. It's particularly interesting how you can turn the failure of the war around to be the fault of the Bush haters.
The number of Iraqi deaths is something that get very little attention in the discussion, something which angers me like hell. Something between 200 000 - 600 000 Iraqis have died since the American invasion depending on which body count you refer to. I can't understand how you can be so sure of that the deaths a decade ago will outnumber a figure that might very well exceed a million in the next decade.
G W Bush is not worse than any dictator or terrorist and I think anti-americanism is just as bad as any other ignorant extremist view whether it's religious fundamentalism, anti-semitism or fascism. But as someone who, in fact, could be viewed as the Leader of the Democratic world I must say that Bush and his administration has been a complete failure, viewed from an international prespective. And the major reasons for me thinking that is the foreign policy and the environment policy. Eight wasted years, completely down the drain. I can't wait until you guys elect a new President next year.
Finally, I must admit I was totally wrong about Arnie. The Californian Governor has proven that there is hope for the Republicans and that concern for the environment is to be find in all political camps. You go, Arnie!!
it's always interesting to hear about why anyone thinks the war is a good thing because I didn't understand the reasons before the invasion and I don't understand them now. It's particularly interesting how you can turn the failure of the war around to be the fault of the Bush haters.
First of all Pidz, I have to say that out of all others who oppose the war you make me think twice sometimes, but unfortunately it is a personal thing for me and that is hard to trump :) . In addition to my personal hang-up I do think that most tend to agree that the initial invasion of Kuwait was wrong. I mean how could you be against "our" invasion and be for Saddams? Hence, I mention the cease fire agreement: I will bring to light, if need be, but we should all know what Saddam agreed too. He failed to meet even the basest of the conditions, therefore the "ceasefire" is forfiet. This is no illegal war, this is a continuation of Desert Strorm. If I am wrong tell me why and where....forget Bush and forget political bias.....what the Hell does a cease fire agreement mean if one does not enforce it?
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
05-26-07, 02:15 AM
Piddzilla, what country are you from?
Piddzilla
05-26-07, 05:13 AM
First of all Pidz, I have to say that out of all others who oppose the war you make me think twice sometimes, but unfortunately it is a personal thing for me and that is hard to trump :) . In addition to my personal hang-up I do think that most tend to agree that the initial invasion of Kuwait was wrong. I mean how could you be against "our" invasion and be for Saddams? Hence, I mention the cease fire agreement: I will bring to light, if need be, but we should all know what Saddam agreed too. He failed to meet even the basest of the conditions, therefore the "ceasefire" is forfiet. This is no illegal war, this is a continuation of Desert Strorm. If I am wrong tell me why and where....forget Bush and forget political bias.....what the Hell does a cease fire agreement mean if one does not enforce it?
The war in Iraq is not a continuation of Desert Storm, which was authorized by the UN. The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not authoriezed by the UN. But I am sure that for many people, especially for some of those who fought in Desert Storm and for the presidents whose dads were president during Desert Storm, this is nothing else but a continuation of Desert Storm, something that those who opposed the war realized from the start. Take away Desert Storm and I'm sure the chances for war in 2003 would have decreased considerably. No one debates that.
So, you think USA had the right to invade Iraq because Iraq broke the cease fire agreement (and attacked America?). I beg to differ, but that doesn't come to you as a surprise, I'm sure, and is not important either. What I still would like to know though is: even if USA had the right to start a war with Iraq, why do you consider it the right thing to do when obviously the official reasons for it were some kind of mirage and the outcome has been disastrous? I'm sorry but personal reasons, which I am sensing is the case here, doesn't really do it.
And for the record, I don't think this is a matter of being simply for or against the war in Iraq. That discussion has played out its role a long time ago. I wasn't neccessarily against removing Saddam with force but I was very much against the Bush administration's wily reasons for it and the fact that it became an American campaign instead of a UN led invasion. What upsets me the most, as I said in my previous post, is how focus is on the politics and Democrats and Republicans fighting over who is the most concerned for taking home the American troops and close the messy Iraqi chapter in the American history. At the same time the Iraqi civilians are dying like flies in something that is developing into full scale civil war. Are you aware of the humanitarian disaster? I don't think the American public really sees the effect that this kind of war has. Maybe it's because America during the first three months this year accepted 69 Iraqi refugees while, for instance, Sweden (with 9 million citizens) accepted 2800 during the same period. There are single neighbourhoods in Swedish cities that accept a larger number of Iraqi refugees than the entire USA. Then you can imagine what it is like in Iraq's neighbouring countries.
Piddzilla, what country are you from?
Sweden.
The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not authoriezed by the UN.
That is because the U.N. is a farce and never enforces anything. How can any country or person have respect for them. The inspectors get the big F.U. bird from Saddam and the oil for food program fraud was so mismanaged that any respect I ever had for the U.N .is gone. I hope the U.N. does repair itself and becomes what it was meant to be, but I do not see that in the near future.
So, you think USA had the right to invade Iraq because Iraq broke the cease fire agreement (and attacked America?).
When did I say attacked America?
Yes I do think this (about the cease fire), I have read the cease fire agreement many times, and it should have happened a lot sooner. But the "rush to war" chants prevented that. The Iraqi war should have started within months of the first violation of the cease fire.
Are you aware of the humanitarian disaster? I don't think the American public really sees the effect that this kind of war has.
I cannot speak for others, but I certainly know the effect and I am only talking about how I feel, and a big part of my feelings are inherited by having many ties to Iraq. And for the record if it was in my power to take in refugees and allow as many as I could to live in my home then I would certainly do it. I know many friends who would do the same.
Piddzilla
05-26-07, 08:05 PM
That is because the U.N. is a farce and never enforces anything. How can any country or person have respect for them. The inspectors get the big F.U. bird from Saddam and the oil for food program fraud was so mismanaged that any respect I ever had for the U.N .is gone. I hope the U.N. does repair itself and becomes what it was meant to be, but I do not see that in the near future.
And I, on the other hand, can't wait for the USA to elect a new president. Which will not of course take away the damages that the so called War on Terror has caused but it will at least be a fresh start.
The inspectors wanted to continue their work, F.U. bird or not, but Bush et al wanted to go. And went. And found nothing.
I too hope UN will reinvent itself. It's all up to its members, the nations. The permanent members of the Security Council, will they step aside to make these necessary changes possible? I doubt it.
When did I say attacked America?
You didn't. It was a rethorical question. I'm just wondering when Saddam went from being a regular pain in the ass to a direct threat to the American people. Which was what the invasion was said to be about: the securty of the American people. It's interesting how the war has gone from being about WMD's to breaking a cease fire agreement.
Yes I do think this (about the cease fire), I have read the cease fire agreement many times, and it should have happened a lot sooner. But the "rush to war" chants prevented that. The Iraqi war should have started within months of the first violation of the cease fire.
Removing Saddam during Desert Storm with the support from a number of key arab states would have been politically a whole lot smarter then what is going on right now, yes I agree.
I cannot speak for others, but I certainly know the effect and I am only talking about how I feel, and a big part of my feelings are inherited by having many ties to Iraq. And for the record if it was in my power to take in refugees and allow as many as I could to live in my home then I would certainly do it. I know many friends who would do the same.
That's nice of you (said without sarcasm).
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
05-26-07, 11:08 PM
If ya' don't like it, blow it up! When God created the heavens!, earth!, and the great United States of God fearin' America!!!, he gave us, red blooded Americans, the right to cram a bunch of soulless creatures into cages so that we could make some red blooded American dollars off of em'! The right to blow crap up! And most importantly, the right to put as much sugar on your cereal as possible!
I drink motor oil!
Piddzilla
05-27-07, 05:13 AM
If ya' don't like it, blow it up! When God created the heavens!, earth!, and the great United States of God fearin' America!!!, he gave us, red blooded Americans, the right to cram a bunch of soulless creatures into cages so that we could make some red blooded American dollars off of em'! The right to blow crap up! And most importantly, the right to put as much sugar on your cereal as possible!
I drink motor oil!
For understandable reasons I'm not a religious man....
Cheers!!
Monkeypunch
05-27-07, 05:24 AM
If ya' don't like it, blow it up! When God created the heavens!, earth!, and the great United States of God fearin' America!!!, he gave us, red blooded Americans, the right to cram a bunch of soulless creatures into cages so that we could make some red blooded American dollars off of em'! The right to blow crap up! And most importantly, the right to put as much sugar on your cereal as possible!
I drink motor oil!
This made me laugh.:rotfl: I really hope you were kidding with this.
Whats up with Rosie now? She says a photo of her child (who is only 4 years old) wrapped in ammuntion was part of "dress up". Is she is going off the deep end or just crying to stay in the spotlight, or both. I am so glad she will not be the new Bob Barker, I was worried about my Plinko game for awhile there. Anyway she should be ashamed of herself.
http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2007/06/27/amd_vivianrose.jpg
Piddzilla
07-21-07, 08:52 AM
I just read on a Swedish news site that Bush has requested that CIA:s prisoner camps and interrogation methods must follow the Geneva Conventions. I don't know but isn't that like saying that up until now torture has been ok? The war on terror being fought with.... terror.
I don't know but isn't that like saying that up until now torture has been ok? The war on terror being fought with.... terror.
I certainly do not condone torture, and torture is terrifying to be sure, so yes af far as torture tecniques I am against the more inhumane methods. However a war is terrifing to those on the ground no matter what side they are fighting, or worse the civilians who happen to be in the area. Maybe we should issue our soldiers balloons and rice cakes and have them ask the terroists for a little brunch.
Piddzilla
07-22-07, 06:51 AM
I certainly do not condone torture, and torture is terrifying to be sure, so yes af far as torture tecniques I am against the more inhumane methods. However a war is terrifing to those on the ground no matter what side they are fighting, or worse the civilians who happen to be in the area. Maybe we should issue our soldiers balloons and rice cakes and have them ask the terroists for a little brunch.
No that probably wouldn't give you the answers you're looking for. That's about the whole point. War is terrible. I'm sure it worse than anyone who's never been in one can imagine. That's why you always should think twice or more before you engage in a war or actively try to convince the people who democratically elected you that war is a good thing. "The war on terror" [I use the term although I think it's one of all the misguiding medialized generalizations used to make things easier for the politicians and the media - just as the use of "Al-Qaeda" which has become the label of a franchise, successfully used by terrorists and activists that probably only know bin Laden by name] can only be won if it's being fought with the same hideous methods that all other warmongers and terrorists are using. CIA knows this. The President knows this. And if the people think real hard, I'm sure they know it too. That's why this war has been so hypocritical from the start. It was said to be about spreading freedom, democracy and a more civilized way of thinking to these parts of the world. In a democratic society violence is not the way we solve conflicts and these savages in the Middle East must learn this. But, they must learn it the hard way - with the use of violence and torture and with the waste of thousands of innocent lives. It seems to be working just wonderfully.
War sucks and there's actually very, very few occasions when military campaigns should be considered as a last resort and as a solution to a conflict. I think the situation in the world today has a lot to do with the fact that the Bush administration's way of doing things actually has more in common with the Afghan and Iraqi rebels' way of doing things than you first would think. Even Bush et al are beginning to realize this as well as the importance of appearing as the civilized party in conflicts like these. A bit too late, unfortunately....
Im stil just laughing at the millions and millions of people who think there can exist something called a humane war.
I mean, it's war. Take out the torture and you still have War. How humane is that?
Piddzilla
07-22-07, 10:45 AM
Im stil just laughing at the millions and millions of people who think there can exist something called a humane war.
I mean, it's war. Take out the torture and you still have War. How humane is that?
That's what I'm saying... There is no such thing as a humane war but that is how The War on Terror has been promoted. If Bush a couple of years ago said "Hey, we're gonna go and drop some bombs on women and children, shoot everything that moves and torture every potential terrorists, innocent or not, in a country far far away" I'm not so sure that USA would be engaged in this mess today. Even if that's exactly what war means. And that's why this request from Bush to the CIA to follow the Geneva Conventions is so ridiculous. Everybody knows that CIA hasn't followed those conventions this far while the war at the same time is supposed to be fought in the name of decency, democracy and civilized behaviour. And now, all of a sudden, the CIA is told to be nice while, again, everybody knows that in war there is no room for nice people. That's why war is so ugly. Does anyone really believe that CIA, or anyone else for that matter, would all of a sudden stop to do what's necessary to obtain certain information? Does anyone really believe that Bush doesn't expect them to do so?
It's all a PR stunt.
It's all a PR stunt.
:yup:
And they'll need as much positive publicity as they can get, seeing as how everyone of importance is going on vacation soon. At the same time.
:furiousdevil:
Been looking at the News on a lot of different sites: Why is it the only place I see Hillary criticized at all about anything is on Fox? I see Bush lambasted on Fox, I see Guliani berated on Fox, I see McCain debated on Fox. Why are only Republicans and occasionally Obama an Edwards hard-balled on other sites? Why is this "fairness" doctrine that the Dem's are trying to get in place only apply to radio? Why is it Bushs' fault that some arsonist set fire to some bushes in California? I think the firestorm in the west was done by a Democrat to help Gore's global warming hysteria. Actually I do not think that but come on the shoes on the other foot and that foot stinks.
I don't know. I haven't been paying attention to the "news channels" lately, but based on past experience, FOX obviously skews right and CNBC skews left. Has it really changed lately?
Powdered Water
10-25-07, 01:20 PM
Here's a huge article that I've been reading for a couple days now, not because I'm slow or anything I just have to take a break from it periodically. Any way its pretty interesting. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/11/iraq-war-index.html
Here's a huge article that I've been reading for a couple days now, not because I'm slow or anything I just have to take a break from it periodically. Any way its pretty interesting. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/11/iraq-war-index.html
A snippet from your link:
in our name: "We owe the Iraqis because we've been letting them down ever since the first Gulf War. Your conscience is not clean just because you're a peace demonstrator. The government is us and the moral obligation is with us as a society. The administration proposed the war; Congress authorized it; we are responsible for it. We can wash our conscience clean with a new election, but there has to be some sort of obligation that falls to us as a society for what our government does in our name."
Too many of U.S. define the "Iraq War" as: war against Iraq, it is silly to label it thus or to define it thusly. Think hard and think logically; jump the politcal fence of tunnel vision and look into the light; We do owe Iraq, we "owe" a lot of people/countries many things, because without them and without the sacrifices many have made we would still be clubbing women over the head for a good time. My spine has been (somewhat) straigthened and my brain is bigger than a pee (barely), and my heart is thumping on my sleeve, and I say: Drop the facade, and raise the curtain, and blow up a doll.......:::-----Get a grip and be thankfull----America is wonderful, and those who say otherwise are Democrats or jealous....or both;D
Piddzilla
10-29-07, 12:50 PM
Been looking at the News on a lot of different sites: Why is it the only place I see Hillary criticized at all about anything is on Fox?
Because it's fair and balanced?
Because it's fair and balanced?
Nah, it is not fair at all, but balanced...moreso than any other stations I view.
Venezuela: the current unrest is a scary thing. I hope it leads to nothing more than sabre rattling, but if not ...well..
Piddzilla
03-07-08, 07:03 PM
Apparently they've kissed and made up. It's all a bit surreal, isn't it...
Piddzilla
03-12-08, 07:56 AM
Ok I just have to ask. Does anyone here think that Bush stopping the torture ban thingy was a good move?
Ok I just have to ask. Does anyone here think that Bush stopping the torture ban thingy was a good move?
I can't help myself... I feel the need to say 'no' at great length... ;)
The surrounding rhetoric has been as gnomic and unhelpful as ever hasn't it...
The best source of information about terrorist attacks is the terrorists themselves.
This quote from a 'torture expert' offers a neat rebuttal to that 'superlative' assertion:
Public cooperation is the best way to gather information. After the failed bomb attacks in London in 2005, the British police found every one of the gang within a week. One was caught after his parents turned him in. They would not have done that if they'd thought he'd be tortured.
The central question that Bushed-boy is currently hedging around is this though: 'Is torture effective?'
And Rejali's got a few things to say about that too...
There is a perception that democracy makes us weak and only "real men" know how to do this stuff. People think torture worked for the Gestapo, for example. It didn't. What made the Gestapo so scarily efficient was its dependence on public cooperation. Informers betrayed the resistance repeatedly in Europe, and everyone knew this, but it was more convenient to say the Gestapo got the truth by beating it out of us.
New Scientist's editorial provides some more of Rejali's historical perspective on torture's efficacy...
His conclusion after trawling through thousands of pages of records is that although it is in governments' interests to say their techniques produce valuable information, there are few if any clear instances where this is the case. In cases where torture has been cited as successful, such as the Algerian war in the 1950s, France's crucial information actually came from informants. If anything, using torture was counterproductive because it undermined the trust and cooperation of the public.
If Rejali is right, it does make the dogged-pursuit of 'clean torture' techniques by the US (and hey, all the 'clean' & 'dirty' techniques used worldwide) seem peculiar. And he's certainly not the only one casting doubt on torture's usefulness...
According to NS (again ;)) a 2007 report (http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf) for the US intelligence services concluded that "the effectiveness of existing interrogation techniques has been accepted without sufficient scrutiny... we do not know what methods or processes of interrogation best protect the nation's security".[NB that 'interrogation' here seems to include 'clean torture' techniques such as waterboarding - IE everything in the US's current arsenal of techniques]
Who knows, maybe the 'suprising' new techniques Bushed-n-company want to pursue may suddenly reverse this apparent history of failure. But there are enough dissenting voices from places like the CIA (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1111-23.htm), and other old hands like the Israeli security forces (who only use interrogation, so they claim), that make you think the Bushed-bunch are ploughing a well-worn but fruitless furrow.
Piddzilla
03-13-08, 06:09 PM
Hell if someone was about to crack my nuts to get some information out of me they would probably get the job done pretty quickly.
To me it's a form of hypocrisy. How can someone ever claim to be in the business of spreading freedom, democracy and a civil way of living and at the same time justify torture?
adidasss
03-13-08, 06:28 PM
Hell if someone was about to crack my nuts to get some information out of me they would probably get the job done pretty quickly.
To me it's a form of hypocrisy. How can someone ever claim to be in the business of spreading freedom, democracy and a civil way of living and at the same time justify torture? I'm sure they'd say that the ends justify the means...;)
Have you seen Taxi to the dark side? If not, you should. :yup:
Hell if someone was about to crack my nuts to get some information out of me they would probably get the job done pretty quickly.
Yeah, but if you didn't have the answers to the questions they're asking, you'd say whatever they wanted to hear. And if you were a jihad-style thinker, you might hold out a bit longer... (and lose the ability to recall and answer coherently in the meanwhile, so those 'in the know' seem to suggest)
To me it's a form of hypocrisy. How can someone ever claim to be in the business of spreading freedom, democracy and a civil way of living and at the same time justify torture?
Jaded-style pseudo-answer: It's almost hypocritical not to be hypocritical in a complex world...
Conspiracy-style answer: I am convinced that the Swedish Secret Service is electrifying several dangerously-drunk Norwegians even as we speak ;)
I say just put a prisoner in a room with his eyes taped open and headphones on and made to watch Golden Girls for hours till they break.
I think you have to spray various perfumes at the prisoner to ratchet up the reality of the situation that he's gotten himself into.
and no, I don't approve of torture nor most of this Administration's flaunting of our laws.
Just so everyone understands where I'm coming from, I don't approve of ANY Administration's flaunting of our laws, and that would cover every Administration since I've been born :( (and several more...)
Seriously: In this instance definitions mean everything. What is torture? Is sleep deprivation torture? It is to the person being put through it, I know. I would rather be waterboarded and get it over with than put through the long arduous pain of sleeplessness. Just my thoughts as they are.
Piddzilla
03-14-08, 04:02 PM
Conspiracy-style answer: I am convinced that the Swedish Secret Service is electrifying several dangerously-drunk Norwegians even as we speak ;)
Actually, I've heard that SÄPO is mainly after English goats these days....
Islamophobia (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23639629/)~ the West is guilty.
Well the world is guilty of Christanityophobia so http://webpages.charter.net/trussell/pictures/raspberry%20smiley.gif.
John McClane
03-15-08, 01:27 PM
Islamophobia (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23639629/)~ the West is guilty.Considering how violent they are, can't blame the west one bit. I mean, when was the last time you saw scores and scores of Christians riot over a cartoon? Silly gooses, those Islams. :D
Monkeypunch
03-15-08, 01:42 PM
Considering how violent they are, can't blame the west one bit. I mean, when was the last time you saw scores and scores of Christians riot over a cartoon? Silly gooses, those Islams. :D
I think it's wrong to pigeonhole all muslims as violent maniacs based upon the worst examples. I've had a few muslim friends, and all of them were good, upstanding people who've never blown up buildings or rioted in the streets or anything of that sort. If we're going to generalize like that, then all Christians are crazy people who murder abortion doctors, hate gay people, and start churches to make a profit. Now we KNOW thats not true, so lets not generalize, hmm? :D
Piddzilla
03-15-08, 08:36 PM
Considering how violent they are, can't blame the west one bit. I mean, when was the last time you saw scores and scores of Christians riot over a cartoon? Silly gooses, those Islams. :D
Actually I think we had a thread here on MoFo where some people were upset about a smiling Jesus figure.
Anyway....
That Iran, a theocracy, is demonizing other religions besides Islam is not that surprising. The tolerant secularized world should be able to tell the difference between fundamentalists and ordinary devoted people. Can you tell the difference?
I had a homeroom teacher once that was a muslim, a kurd. He was a great man in all possible ways.
I was not really trying to say anything about any religion, but if you censor one thing then where does it lead?
Actually I think we had a thread here on MoFo where some people were upset about a smiling Jesus figure.
We did, I remember it. I was one of the people who didn't like it, because I thought it was disrespectful of Christianity. But seeing as how the discussion actually took place, remained calm, and I didn't riot in the streets or set anything on fire, I'd say it's a rather different situation from, say, some people's reactions to the Mohammed cartoon.
That Iran, a theocracy, is demonizing other religions besides Islam is not that surprising. The tolerant secularized world should be able to tell the difference between fundamentalists and ordinary devoted people. Can you tell the difference?
We absolutely should be able to tell the difference. We should be able to recognize that a religion is not defined by its abusers and extremists.
We should also have the intellectual courage to criticize said extremists. So, people should not assume all Muslims will react extremely to the cartoon of Mohammed, but people shouldn't be afraid to criticize the people that do simply because they're Muslims, either.
And, most importantly: people shouldn't be reacting violently to the cartoon in the first place.
Piddzilla
03-16-08, 07:40 AM
We did, I remember it. I was one of the people who didn't like it, because I thought it was disrespectful of Christianity. But seeing as how the discussion actually took place, remained calm, and I didn't riot in the streets or set anything on fire, I'd say it's a rather different situation from, say, some people's reactions to the Mohammed cartoon.
Is that supposed to be telling me something valuable about possible differences between christians and muslims?
Do you honestly believe that cartoons are the sole reasons to why people in a few theocratic dictatorships were out on the streets burning Danish flags?
There are lots and lots of protests, discussions, debates and arguments here in Sweden too in which several muslims, christians, atheists and others are participating. It's all been very civilized for the most part.
We absolutely should be able to tell the difference. We should be able to recognize that a religion is not defined by its abusers and extremists.
Exactly.
We should also have the intellectual courage to criticize said extremists. So, people should not assume all Muslims will react extremely to the cartoon of Mohammed, but people shouldn't be afraid to criticize the people that do simply because they're Muslims, either.
And, most importantly: people shouldn't be reacting violently to the cartoon in the first place.
Again, it's more to it than just the cartoon. But anyway, at least they haven't attacked or invaded another country.
But anyway, at least they haven't attacked or invaded another country.
(Not sure who the they is in this quote.)
No, but hanging homosexuals as a practice, trying to imprison a teacher for a teddy bears name, strapping bombs to kids, etc...
I just wanted to point out in my original post on this subject that it is not just my imagination: Christian and Jews are publicly put down and no one thinks anything of it; I mean the right to do so, not the actually ideals put forth. I hear the word God da*n readily used, what if everyone went around saying Muhammad **** or something as such?
Thoughts on the Obama/Pastor mess?
Either he denounces someone for saying these things or he doesnt, seems like he is trying to ride the fence. I like the guy and think he could be a good leader, but to tapdance like this is kind of concerning to me. The Clintons are best at tap-dancing, Obama is way behind, so he needs to just be straightforward. Easy to say, hard to do I know.
My thoughts on the war;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_-x9kMPauc
Equilibrium
03-19-08, 10:50 PM
(Not sure who the they is in this quote.)
No, but hanging homosexuals as a practice, trying to imprison a teacher for a teddy bears name, strapping bombs to kids, etc...
I just wanted to point out in my original post on this subject that it is not just my imagination: Christian and Jews are publicly put down and no one thinks anything of it; I mean the right to do so, not the actually ideals put forth. I hear the word God da*n readily used, what if everyone went around saying Muhammad **** or something as such?
You say that as if Muslims routinely hang homosexuals, imprison teachers for teddy bear names, and strap bombs to their kids.
My confidence in your ability to be rational continues to wane as I read more of your opinions, and I mean that in the most respectful way possible.
The reason the teddy bear incident was such as big deal is because its so isolated. Its an incident that never happens and thus, because for some reason it happened this time, everyone knows about. I know plenty of people who have done the same thing and they never got treated that way.
Secondly, I've been a Muslim for 21 years and been to most of the middle eastern countries and I've never NEVER heard of anyone strapping bombs to their children. Yes it happens in palestine, but how many of those kids actually go on to commit suicide attacks? The count so far is 0. No kid has ever actually blown himself up.
Finally as far as the homosexual thing. Sharia (Islamic Law) doesn't even have a punishment for homosexuals. Historically, ever since the Prophet in 570 AD, homosexuals have been largely ignored in the islamic religion. They were were neither punished nor encouraged. This stems from the Mu'tazilla islamic school of thought which states that the only person who can be made to judge another human being is god himself. Thus, the sharia only concerns itself with matters that occur between humans (stealing, raping, lying, etc). Any persecution of homosexuals is a political matter that occurs as a result of "modern" states. Syria for instance does not have any law against homosexuals and they are in the streets openly gay.
I think I've pretty much closed up any confusion you've had so far about homosexuals, teddy bears, and terror children. If you remain confused, let me know and I'll do my best to try and explain things again to you.
Now on to the cartoon. Yoda has already mentioned something to the effect that no one should be so angry about a cartoon, its just a cartoon right???
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
You've never seen a Muslim desecrate Jesus, or Moses or any other religious figure. Muslims themselves don't even draw pictures of Muhammed. There isn't a single picture of him in Islamic art or history. For a foreign country to decide to make funny cartoons of him is very very aggressive and hostile. It is an attack on the religion itself. I know some goofass is going to bring up 1st amendment rights and free speech, but there is a different between free speech aimed at a specific crowd and thats meant to rouse them and free speech that is general and aimed at information. The same cartoonist could have found a less hateful way to be humorous. Also, those cartoons weren't funny..they were downright disturbing and made muhammed look like a satanist.
Speaking of free speech, have you ever seen a picture of Jesus looking like Satan? I don't think any newspaper in the world would allow it.
It always comes to this. The term extremist was used so I played on that and I was actually talking about Iran and it's leadership policies. Do not deny what their president said when he visited out country. I do not have anything against the Muslim faith except maybe the way woman are not allowed to do certain things, it certainly is not an extermist view that women in the muslim faith cannot do many things. That is fine, all well and good. Are you also saying that homosexual muslims are open? Really? Maybe in America or England, but can they be open in Iraq and Iran or Saudi? As for children being strapped with bombs...I have seen them. Children that were the age of 15 or 16 or so, maybe they are not children to you, but if you are a parent of a teenager they are children. I have seen and heard many things that are even worse. I certainly do not think most Muslims agree with these things and I never said so. "They" is a very powerful word and it almost always gets bandied about like a teeball. Do you seriously think I just say things for the hell of it?
This is almost a bit of what I am talking about when it comes to saying anything at all against any religion other than Judaism and Christianity. If I speak up at all I am just another statistic, if anything at all is said against Muslims then Hells Bells I am just unrational. EQ - Dude, seriously: (take this for what it is worth)
I respect you a lot and I respect that you are speaking out for what you think, but I am not talking about you or your religion. I was trying to make a pint that extremist exist in every religion and if people want to speak out and say something they should. No hard feelings please. I sometimes come across as black and white, but in reality I understand the many shades of grey, and the thing I hate most about any religion, country, government, etc.... is when life (which is so wonderful and holy) is just a tool, and trust me I know my country holds no awards in this area, but, as in most places, around the world, a government is not always a direct representation of the people it governs.
Now about things out there against Christians: You have to be kidding about the Satan/Jesus thing right? Upside down crosses, Last Supper paintings, etc... they are everywhere, and although I do not agree with these things, I agree that they are what they are and to take it personally is silly.
http://gregladen.com/wordpress/wp-content/graphics/folsom.jpg
Equilibrium
03-20-08, 01:46 AM
It always comes to this. The term extremist was used so I played on that and I was actually talking about Iran and it's leadership policies. Do not deny what their president said when he visited out country. I do not have anything against the Muslim faith except maybe the way woman are not allowed to do certain things, it certainly is not an extermist view that women in the muslim faith cannot do many things. That is fine, all well and good. Are you also saying that homosexual muslims are open? Really? Maybe in America or England, but can they be open in Iraq and Iran or Saudi? As for children being strapped with bombs...I have seen them. Children that were the age of 15 or 16 or so, maybe they are not children to you, but if you are a parent of a teenager they are children. I have seen and heard many things that are even worse. I certainly do not think most Muslims agree with these things and I never said so. "They" is a very powerful word and it almost always gets bandied about like a teeball. Do you seriously think I just say things for the hell of it?
This is almost a bit of what I am talking about when it comes to saying anything at all against any religion other than Judaism and Christianity. If I speak up at all I am just another statistic, if anything at all is said against Muslims then Hells Bells I am just unrational. EQ - Dude, seriously: (take this for what it is worth)
I respect you a lot and I respect that you are speaking out for what you think, but I am not talking about you or your religion. I was trying to make a pint that extremist exist in every religion and if people want to speak out and say something they should. No hard feelings please. I sometimes come across as black and white, but in reality I understand the many shades of grey, and the thing I hate most about any religion, country, government, etc.... is when life (which is so wonderful and holy) is just a tool, and trust me I know my country holds no awards in this area, but, as in most places, around the world, a government is not always a direct representation of the people it governs.
Now about things out there against Christians: You have to be kidding about the Satan/Jesus thing right? Upside down crosses, Last Supper paintings, etc... they are everywhere, and although I do not agree with these things, I agree that they are what they are and to take it personally is silly.
http://gregladen.com/wordpress/wp-content/graphics/folsom.jpg
7thson, again. I urge you to look at what you say and then what proof you offer. First you mention Iran. I don't care what Iran does or says. Just because Iran does something that the world considers to be immoral (or whatever term you want to use) it doesn't mean this is the fault of religion. This type of rationale is called ANALOGICAL REASONING. For instance, in the Quran it says that wine is forbidden. Does this mean it was forbidden because wine is red? Is wine forbidden because it comes from grapes and grapes are a no-no in islam? Of course not. Using analogical reasoning any reasonable man would conclude that wine was outlawed because of the alchohol content. Thus, using analogical reasoning we conclude that beer, vodka, gin, whisky and all other variants of alchohol are also forbidden.
It is amazing what analogical reasoning can do for us eh? By the same token, just because Iran, Iraq or Saudi act a certain way it doesnt mean that the ccommon link is Islam and thus is the culprit.
Now let us move on to the topic of women. While women were being treated like dirt in Europe, the islamic religion brought to them so much equality that many people wouldn't join the religion simply because they did not believe women and men should be so equal.
You said point blank that women cannot do certain things? Like what? In Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive, but is that because of a religious reason? NO. Indonesia, the biggest Muslim country, was the first country in the world to elect a FEMALE Prime Minister. And she drove and even flew whenever she felt like it. Don't tell me that ISLAM denies women any rights, because it doesn't. In fact it protects their rights. In 600 AD women were often viewed as property and Islam completely changed that. To this day, women in Islam play a prominent role.---->Analogical Reasoning
Again, I think you tend to confuse STATE POLICY and RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY. I'll reference Syria again: My 16 year old sister drives wherever she feels like it, doesn't wear a scarf on her head, and in fact dresses in ways that push the limits even in the USA.
You've seen children wearing bombs? In person? And yes my definition of children is the same as yours; below 18 is a child. So tell me where did you see these kids? In pictures? You know usually its the same damn kid they always show. I'd also again like to stress, none of these kids have ever actually blown themselves up. Pictures and videos maybe one thing, but show me a headline where a 15 year old kid actually blows himself up. It doesn't exist.
Again, for the homosexuals...historically for 95% of Islam's existence homosexuals were ignored and not bothered. Today, some countries do not allow public displays of homosexuality. That is true in most states in the US also. In Islam, what you do on your own is your business. Even in Saudi Arabia, to be convicted of homosexuality there have to be 4 eye witnesses to you committing a homosexual act and since the possibility of that happening is so rare homosexuality is just as common in Saudi Arabia as it is in the US. STOP MENTIONING COUNTRIES: JUST BECAUSE IRAN AND IRAQ DO NOT ALLOW HOMOSEXUALS THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT STEMS FROM RELIGIOUS POLICY.Iran and Iraq are not the only muslim countries.
I don't think you say things for the hell of it. I think you say things because you actually believe the things you say, which to me is even more unfortunate.
As for your picture that you posted and the descriptions of upside down crosses.....You completely dodged my accusation by avoiding what I said. The day I see that picture in a respected newspaper is the day I'll renounce that I even exist. The cartoonist in question published the pictures of muhammad in a well respected newspaper viewed by millions. A newspaper is governed by authority and is accountable for acts of immorality or indecency. Online, any joe shmo can make pictures of whatever they want and you can be sure that online there are far worse pictures of muhammed than that cartoon. So don't pull a random online image and tell me "look the same thing happened here' no, it didn't. Show me a newspaper in the us or other country that showed as much disrespect to Christianity or Judaism as that newspaper showed towards Muslims.
I respect you too 7thson and no hard feelings. I don't think you're a racist or even ethnocentric....but if I didn't know you as well as I do , I would definitely have guessed that your words only thinly veil your complete hate of Islam, its followers, and everything its contributed to society.
I will comment on this in more detail when I have time,probably tommorow.:)
I want you to look at the population of Iran, Iraq, and Saudi. How many Christians openly live there, how many Muslims, how many others?
I have seen kids used as pawns, by extemists. It may not be in the media, but I know, I have seen it. It hurts to go into detail, it really does, if you want I will, but I do not lie, thats best I can do without getting sick.
Piddzilla
03-20-08, 07:51 AM
My thoughts on the war;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_-x9kMPauc
For about one minute I wasn't sure whether this was satire or not.... Now I'm beginning to wonder whether Wag the Dog was satire or not.
The Sydsvenska Dagbladet Snällposten (my morning paper) published an interview today with Hans Blix, the former inspector of the UN-based IAEA (International Atomic Engergy Agency). The reason, of course, is because of the five years anniversary of the war in Iraq.
I thought I'd translate the interview for you guys.
SDS: Knowing what we know now, was it wrong to invade Iraq?
HB: Completely wrong. Iraq was not a danger to other states. Saddam was an atrocious figure to his own people. But if he had been left alone he probably would have transformed into a Gadaffi or a Castro. The serious part is that USA caused great damage to the UN-system when they invaded without the approval of the Security Council.
SDS: Were you certain of that Saddam did not hide any weapons of mass destruction?
HB: In the fall of 2002 I, like most people, believed in the existence of such weapons. But we made 700 inspections on 500 locations. Often where the US intelligence service told us to look. That's when the doubt arose. Then the evidence of the USA was undermined. The CIA report saying that Iraq had bought uranium oxide from Niger was the most flagrant example. It took IAEA 24 hrs to show that the report was false. But if someone had asked me in March 2003 if I was certain of that Saddam did not have any WMD:s I would have said no, because you can't prove something that doesn't exist.
SDS: When were you certain?
HB: A couple of months after the invasion when USA had offered Iraqi scientists asylum and money in exchange for information. Without anyone taking the bait.
SDS: Which were USA:s other motives to invade Iraq?
HB: They said they wanted to get al-Qaeda. But al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq. They got there after the invasion.
The third reason was to overthrow Saddam and spread democracy. That was true possibly, but naive.
In addition to that I've more and more started to believe that it really was about the oil. USA had troops in Saudi Arabia since the first Gulf war. But they weren't welcomed in the islamitic state. Where could they move? Iraq was the most secularized country of the oil states. They had the second largest oil reserve and moreover was a neighbour to Iran, who USA wanted to keep an eye on. So Iraq was suitable as a military base in the region, if only they could get rid of the butcher who lead the country.
SDS: How can we stop the violence today?
HB: Only the Iraqis themselves can do it. It's amazing when you meet Iraqis today how many of them that say that before the war they often didn't know which religious sect their neighbour belonged to. It appears as the occupation has triggered the secterism.
I think that under anarchy people will look for movements that can protect them. In Iraq there are two possibilities. Go to your clan or go to a religious group. They can't trust the authorities to uphold the order.
SDS: So USA should withdraw from Iraq?
HB: As a short-term sollution that's not possible. Hillary Clinton has promised in her campaign that USA should start to withdraw within 90 days. That's vague, of course, but I understand her.
I think USA will have to give a clear signal to the Iraqis: "You will have to count on that we will withdraw within a couple of years." An Iraqi government must feel that it controls it's own situation.
The worst part is that I think that powerful interests in USA want the troops to remain in Iraq for a long time. For the same reasons as the invasion: the oil. They believe that there is a need for armed forces to protect their interests in the region.
SDS: What conclusions about Iran can one draw from USA:s war in Iraq?
HB: USA have been overwhelmed by their own strength. USA have often had good intentions. After the failure in Iraq they have drawn the conclusion that it is easy to bomb and take over a country, but that you can't solve problems as easy as that.
This you can see in the game with Iran. In that game USA does not want to provoke the Russians to use their veto in the Security Council. USA have agreed to weak resolutions in order to keep the Council together.
After the CIA report last fall stating that Iran has stopped their attempts to get nuclear weapons, the risk of an American attack is very small.
SDS: Do you personally believe that the Iranians are trying to get nuclear weapons?
HB: It really doesn't make such a big difference. Iran possesses enrichment facillities. And they have the right to, according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So they are able to enrich up to 90 % needed for nuclear weapons. Even if the regime says that they are not intending to build a bomb the surrounding world says: "They might change their minds. A new Mullah may arrive."
adidasss
03-20-08, 08:03 AM
Finally as far as the homosexual thing. Sharia (Islamic Law) doesn't even have a punishment for homosexuals. Historically, ever since the Prophet in 570 AD, homosexuals have been largely ignored in the islamic religion. They were were neither punished nor encouraged. This stems from the Mu'tazilla islamic school of thought which states that the only person who can be made to judge another human being is god himself. Thus, the sharia only concerns itself with matters that occur between humans (stealing, raping, lying, etc). Any persecution of homosexuals is a political matter that occurs as a result of "modern" states. Syria for instance does not have any law against homosexuals and they are in the streets openly gay.
Wow, I almost want to go and live in a Muslim country.
Islam and homosexuality. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla1.htm)
Iran. (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm)
Morocco. (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/26/morocc18141.htm)
Egypt. (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/15/egypt18064.htm)
Kuwait. (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/01/17/kuwait17800.htm)
You've never seen a Muslim desecrate Jesus, or Moses or any other religious figure. Muslims themselves don't even draw pictures of Muhammed. There isn't a single picture of him in Islamic art or history. Apparently you're wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg) For a foreign country to decide to make funny cartoons of him is very very aggressive and hostile. It is an attack on the religion itself. A foreign country didn't decide to make funny cartoons, it was an independant newspaper in Denmark. I know some goofass is going to bring up 1st amendment rights and free speech, but there is a different between free speech aimed at a specific crowd and thats meant to rouse them and free speech that is general and aimed at information. The same cartoonist could have found a less hateful way to be humorous. And the Muslims could have found a less violent way to express their disagreement with them.
Equilibrium
03-20-08, 11:41 PM
Wow, I almost want to go and live in a Muslim country.
Islam and homosexuality. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla1.htm)
Iran. (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm)
Morocco. (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/26/morocc18141.htm)
Egypt. (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/15/egypt18064.htm)
Kuwait. (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/01/17/kuwait17800.htm)
Apparently you're wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg) A foreign country didn't decide to make funny cartoons, it was an independant newspaper in Denmark. And the Muslims could have found a less violent way to express their disagreement with them.
The links you gave me linked to legal and state procedures and not Sharia and Fiqh (Jurisprudence), As I mentioned before I dont care if you mention a 1000 muslim countries committing a violation..what matters here is the influence of the religion. And the religion has clearly stated that there is no ruling on homosexuals, they are to be ignored. Which means whatever acts you're highlighting are countries acting outside the realm of religion. If we're talking about tolerance of gays in the middle east it is one thing...tolerance in Islamic religion and law is a whole 'nother thing.
Secondly, how many homosexuals are abused and murdered in the United States each year???? MANY. Does that mean the universal consensus in the us is that homosexuals are to be punished by death? No.
Apparently you're wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg)
Apparantly Addidas, you don't know how to read.
1.) I didn't say that no picture of muhammad has ever been drawn, I said MUSLIMS do not draw pictures of him. It is forbidden in Islam to depict any of the prophets or god, etc.
2.)The link you gave is of a picture drawn by and exhibited as an ORIENTAL peice. It says it right there on the bottom. The orient (probably china) draws pictures of everything. Why else do those arabs look more oriental than um Arabic.
3.) My point still stands: No Muslim has ever desecrated Jesus, or Moses, or Muhammad in Islamic art or history. In fact, Muslims forbid depictions of any type of these prophetic figures.
Wait let me get this straight. Someone does something extremely hostile which begets an equally hostile reaction and you blame the reaction?
Who do you blame when your house or property is up in flames? The physical properties of wood that allow it to burn? Or the culprit who threw a cigarette on the dry grass?
I probably blame God for believing that humankind can take responsibility for anything. But, I can love whoever the Creator of the Universe is because this Being gave me a chance to hang out with some friends and try to make sense out of this seemingly-nonsensical world that was created. I can also try to agree with others that things aren't always what we believe they are and/or seem to be, that we will never know all the answers, and, to steal from Harry Truman, "It's what you learn after you know it all that really matters."
I owe a few longer replies to this thread, but I felt compelled to jump into a different line of discussion for a second.
As I mentioned before I dont care if you mention a 1000 muslim countries committing a violation..what matters here is the influence of the religion.
Okay, but if 1000 Muslim countries all committed the same violation, wouldn't you have to conclude that the religion was having an influence? Even beyond its stated beliefs?
It is true that we cannot, and should not, judge a religious belief based on its abusers. But we should sit up and take note when a particular belief seems to lend itself to a certain type of abuse a disproportionate amount of the time. Whether or not Islam openly supports these things, it seems to me, as a layman, that a great many Muslim countries have very oppressive laws towards women, homosexuals, and non-Muslims, in varying degrees, of course. Why do you think this is? Surely it can't be a coincidence.
3.) My point still stands: No Muslim has ever desecrated Jesus, or Moses, or Muhammad in Islamic art or history. In fact, Muslims forbid depictions of any type of these prophetic figures.
I'm not sure how this is possible. Christianity forbids lots of things that Christians still do from time to time. How can you possibly say that no Muslim has ever descretated any of these figures?
Wait let me get this straight. Someone does something extremely hostile which begets an equally hostile reaction and you blame the reaction?
Who do you blame when your house or property is up in flames? The physical properties of wood that allow it to burn? Or the culprit who threw a cigarette on the dry grass?
I don't see the logic in this analogy. You're acting as if violent riots are a perfectly natural reaction to a cartoon. You regard the cartoon, which is an ideological attack, as equally hostile to violent rioting, which is a physical attack. I'm not sure how to dispute this, because I'd have thought it was self-evident that intellectual battles are almost invariably preferable to actual battles. Since when does simply being offended give anyone the right to resort to potentially deadly violence?
The fact that Muslims believe it to be an especially grave offense is their business. Nobody else should be required to recognize the tenets of their religion. I could randomly declare that the word "sunshine" is unholy and that if someone utters it in my presence, I cannot be held accountable if I respond violently. But of course, I can be held accountable, because nobody is required to curtail their own lives to fit my beliefs.
My example is absurd, of course, but at its core Islam should be no different. Muslims can practice as they see fit, but not if it means behaving violently towards those who do not recognize it. If a Muslim insists, with the threat of violence, that a non-Muslim adhere to his beliefs, then he's oppressing that person, plain and simple. It'd be no different if a Christian threatened violence towards an Atheist for taking the Lord's name in vain. The Atheist has no obligation to avoid what the Christian considers to be blasphemy, and non-Muslims have no obligation to avoid what Muslims consider blasphemy, either. To suggest otherwise is to advocate religious oppression.
In other words, one group of people does not get to decide what constitutes blasphemy for everyone. Each group decides for themselves what they consider to be offensive or blasphemous. Nobody gets to make a list of things they don't like and simply declare that they're allowed to become violent when they happen.
Nobody gets to make a list of things they don't like and simply declare that they're allowed to become violent when they happen.
I wish this statement was true.
Equilibrium
03-21-08, 02:24 AM
On a side note, what is the multi-quote button for and how do I use it? I can't help but feel that my copy and pasting of the quote tags is the long way to do things...
anyways..
Okay, but if 1000 Muslim countries all committed the same violation, wouldn't you have to conclude that the religion was having an influence? Even beyond its stated beliefs?
I would conclude that 1000 Muslim countries are twisting the religion to their own purposes. I would certainly not conclude that Islam is an inherently flawed religion that turns any civil country into a member of these "1000."
It is true that we cannot, and should not, judge a religious belief based on its abusers. But we should sit up and take note when a particular belief seems to lend itself to a certain type of abuse a disproportionate amount of the time. Whether or not Islam openly supports these things, it seems to me, as a layman, that a great many Muslim countries have very oppressive laws towards women, homosexuals, and non-Muslims, in varying degrees, of course. Why do you think this is? Surely it can't be a coincidence.
Hmm. Why is religion the only coincidence? Maybe it is a cultural thing? I agree that the application of Islam differs from its stated idealogy, but I do not agree that the basic tenets of Islam and its intentions are to screw up the world.
I'm not sure how this is possible. Christianity forbids lots of things that Christians still do from time to time. How can you possibly say that no Muslim has ever descretated any of these figures?
What? I don't see how it would be otherwise. Why would a muslim, knowing the reverence placed upon prophets ever desecrate a prophet? To do such a thing is obviously a rebellion against Islam and thus anyone who does such a thing is not a muslim.
I don't see the logic in this analogy. You're acting as if violent riots are a perfectly natural reaction to a cartoon. You regard the cartoon, which is an ideological attack, as equally hostile to violent rioting, which is a physical attack. I'm not sure how to dispute this, because I'd have thought it was self-evident that intellectual battles are almost invariably preferable to actual battles. Since when does simply being offended give anyone the right to resort to potentially deadly violence?
I'm not defending violent protestors. I'm defending the right to be extremely mad.
The fact that Muslims believe it to be an especially grave offense is their business. Nobody else should be required to recognize the tenets of their religion. I could randomly declare that the word "sunshine" is unholy and that if someone utters it in my presence, I cannot be held accountable if I respond violently. But of course, I can be held accountable, because nobody is required to curtail their own lives to fit my beliefs.
Hm. Black people find it offensive to call them NIGGERS but what if I wish to use that word? Why should I not be able to use it just because a whole group of people have proclaimed it to be a curse? For the same reason why a cartoonist should not draw satanist images of a revered figure in the muslim religion. Both accounts are condescending and meant to harm or display a lack of respect.
My example is absurd, of course, but at its core Islam should be no different. Muslims can practice as they see fit, but not if it means behaving violently towards those who do not recognize it. If a Muslim insists, with the threat of violence, that a non-Muslim adhere to his beliefs, then he's oppressing that person, plain and simple. It'd be no different if a Christian threatened violence towards an Atheist for taking the Lord's name in vain. The Atheist has no obligation to avoid what the Christian considers to be blasphemy, and non-Muslims have no obligation to avoid what Muslims consider blasphemy, either. To suggest otherwise is to advocate religious oppression.
In other words, one group of people does not get to decide what constitutes blasphemy for everyone. Each group decides for themselves what they consider to be offensive or blasphemous. Nobody gets to make a list of things they don't like and simply declare that they're allowed to become violent when they happen.
There's a difference, IMHO, between something that is blasphemous and something that is malicious. Many people don't belive in god and no one cares. In all muslim countries there are christian and jewish populations that can practice their religion and no one protests blasphemy there?? The Christian tradition holds that Jesus is the son of God, this is a major blasphemy when compared to Islamic notions of a singular being with no sons or equals. Yet christians and muslims get along just fine (in my country at least).
Malicious 'blasphemy' is another beast. I don't think that cartoonist actually thought Muhammad looked like that or drank blood or did whatever else was depicted. His aim was in my opinion plain disrespect and ignorance. How many picked up that cartoon and actually thought it was funny?
EDIT: In retrospect, don't you think those violent protests have made a difference? I would argue that anyone drawing pictures of the prophet muhammad for malicious reasons would think twice now.
The fact of the matter is: There ARE groups and there will ALWAYS be groups. We live on a single planet and if groups can learn to not cross boundries then this sort of thing wouldn't happen.
adidasss
03-21-08, 08:01 AM
[QUOTE]The links you gave me linked to legal and state procedures and not Sharia and Fiqh (Jurisprudence), As I mentioned before I dont care if you mention a 1000 muslim countries committing a violation..what matters here is the influence of the religion. And the religion has clearly stated that there is no ruling on homosexuals, they are to be ignored. Which means whatever acts you're highlighting are countries acting outside the realm of religion. If we're talking about tolerance of gays in the middle east it is one thing...tolerance in Islamic religion and law is a whole 'nother thing. Just like homophobia in the west has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. :rolleyes:
Incidentally - There are seven countries in the world that carry the death penalty for homosexual acts, and all of them justify this punishment with sharia.
While there is a consensus that same-sex intercourse is in violation of Islamic law, there are differences of opinion within Islamic scholarship about punishment, reformation, and what standards of proof are required before physical punishment becomes lawful.
In Sunni Islam there are eight madhhabs, or legal schools, of which only four still exist: Hanafi, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Maliki. The main Shia school is called Ja'fari, but there are Zaidi and Ismai'ili also. More recently, some groups have rejected this tradition in favor of greater ijtihad, or individual interpretation. Of these schools, according to Michael Mumisa of the Birmingham-based Al Mahdi institute:
* The Hanafi school does not consider same-sex intercourse to constitute adultery, and therefore leaves punishment up to the judge's discretion. Most early scholars of this school specifically ruled out the death penalty, others allow it for a second offence.
* Imam Shafi'i considers same-sex intercourse as analogous to other zina; thus, a married person found to have done so is punished as an adulterer (by stoning to death), and an unmarried one, as a fornicator, is left to be flogged.
* The Maliki school says that anyone (married or unmarried) found to have committed same-sex intercourse should be punished as an adulterer.
* Within the Ja'fari schools, Sayyid al-Khoi says that anyone (married or unmarried) found to have committed same-sex intercourse should be punished as an adulterer.
It should also be noted that the punishment for adultery requires four witnesses; by analogy, all schools, require four witnesses to the physical act of penetration for the punishment to be applied.But if otherwise any other proof is found through modern methods such as DNA testing or so the punishment can be implimented.
According to the modern Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi's summary:
"The jurists of Islam have held different opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for zina, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements." - Source. (http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm)
Secondly, how many homosexuals are abused and murdered in the United States each year???? MANY. Does that mean the universal consensus in the us is that homosexuals are to be punished by death? No. Homophobia in the west certainly still exists, and in most cases it's justified by the Bible...just like it's justified by the Qur'an in the east. There's no use in denying it so please stop trying. Islam is not as liberal as you make it out to be, but neither is Christianity if that makes you feel better.
Wait let me get this straight. Someone does something extremely hostile which begets an equally hostile reaction and you blame the reaction?
Who do you blame when your house or property is up in flames? The physical properties of wood that allow it to burn? Or the culprit who threw a cigarette on the dry grass?
Unlike you, I don't excuse violence unless it's in self defense. A couple of cartoons don't constitute "extreme hostility" to any sane person. You can print countless blashpemous images of Jesus in your newspapers, and you will NEVER get a reaction like that in the Christian world...you know why? BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST CARTOONS!
I think it will be a sad day if western culture allows it self to be bullied by Islam.
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/3463/b3tagbehhthu20mar2116on9.jpg
(Just saw this on the popular site B3ta, and it made me laugh)
Whether or not Islam openly supports these things, it seems to me, as a layman, that a great many Muslim countries have very oppressive laws towards women, homosexuals, and non-Muslims, in varying degrees, of course. Why do you think this is? Surely it can't be a coincidence.
I reckon those forms of oppression are pretty generic responses to prolonged national 'stress'. The Middle East has a preponderance of 'stress' issues (oligarchies, war-torn regions, limited sustenance resources etc) - but you can see comparable attitudes in any part of the world with similar conditions and recent history, regardless of inherent religion.
Hmm. Why is religion the only coincidence? Maybe it is a cultural thing? I agree that the application of Islam differs from its stated idealogy, but I do not agree that the basic tenets of Islam and its intentions are to screw up the world.
Yods wasn't saying Islam sets out to screw up the world Eq, come on now.
I'm not sure how well your 'cultural' argument stands up though, given that must current Islamic states also have a strong cultural history of an Islamic nature, to my knowledge. I'd say the 'political health' of a country plays a stronger role in dictating its oppressiveness (with religion just flavouring the outcome).
EDIT: In retrospect, don't you think those violent protests have made a difference? I would argue that anyone drawing pictures of the prophet muhammad for malicious reasons would think twice now.
That's a real slippery-slope argument right there. High-profile conceptual reaction (as Yods pointed out) would have been very much in place and would have highlighted the fact that depicting Mohammad was offensive (many of us didn't know that). Your argument that the step-up to violence is justified practically enfranchises the murder of the Dutch director Van Gogh. Do you think that his murder was acceptable? I reckon not.
I'm defending the right to be extremely mad.
PS, this made me laugh too :D
7thson, again. I urge you to look at what you say and then what proof you offer.
I just have my word on what I have seen in person as an offer of proof, take it for what it is worth.:)
First you mention Iran. I don't care what Iran does or says. Just because Iran does something that the world considers to be immoral (or whatever term you want to use) it doesn't mean this is the fault of religion.
Why do you not care? I hope you man in just terms of comparing?
If religion does no play a part in what I am talking about then I am not sure what does: Iran, Iraq, and Saudi ,according to census, are
Almost all 100 percent Muslims, Saudi lists all of its citizens as Muslim .
Darn have to go for now:
to be continued.:)
Equilibrium
03-21-08, 03:46 PM
You guys are killing me ;)
I shall respond to you fine people shortly.
. Using analogical reasoning any reasonable man would conclude that wine was outlawed because of the alchohol content. Thus, using analogical reasoning we conclude that beer, vodka, gin, whisky and all other variants of alchohol are also forbidden.
It is amazing what analogical reasoning can do for us eh? By the same token, just because Iran, Iraq or Saudi act a certain way it doesnt mean that the ccommon link is Islam and thus is the culprit.
So you are saying that religion plays no part at all? What is the common link then?
.
You said point blank that women cannot do certain things? Like what? In Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive, but is that because of a religious reason? NO. Indonesia, the biggest Muslim country, was the first country in the world to elect a FEMALE Prime Minister. And she drove and even flew whenever she felt like it. Don't tell me that ISLAM denies women any rights, because it doesn't.
Well I do know they have to ride in the back of the bus and have to stand up while the men get seats in the front. I saw pregneant woman standing while the men got to sit. I rode many of these busses when I was over there. The options for careers are very limited and education is awful. It is silly to go on as we all know that women are not allowed to do things or are restricted in doing things in a large part of the muslim world. After saying that, it is their buisness if that is what they believe in and desire, the freedom to choose is very important - of course if you have two choices and A. is Muslim, and B. is Muslim, then hey go for C and be flogged. (Only in Saudi of course ;) )
. Again, I think you tend to confuse STATE POLICY and RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY. I'll reference Syria again: My 16 year old sister drives wherever she feels like it, doesn't wear a scarf on her head, and in fact dresses in ways that push the limits even in the USA.
If you think that State Policy in many Muslim ran governments is not
influenced by religion then I am not sure what to say.
.
You've seen children wearing bombs? In person?
It doesn't exist.
Yes
and Yes it does.
I am working on relating an incident that I experienced, but I will share it in another thread.
STOP MENTIONING COUNTRIES: JUST BECAUSE IRAN AND IRAQ DO NOT ALLOW HOMOSEXUALS THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT STEMS FROM RELIGIOUS POLICY.Iran and Iraq are not the only muslim countries.
So you are saying that religion plays no part at all in the way homosexuals are treated in Iraq and Iran, and Saudi, and Afghanistan, etc... State Policy as you put it is is seperate from Religion and I agree. Policies, however, are put forth from the convictions of leaders and voters and Tyrants, and Dictators, and in countries with almost 100 percent population of one religion you just cannot say the religion is not a factor.
I don't think you say things for the hell of it. I think you say things because you actually believe the things you say, which to me is even more unfortunate.
Not sure what to say here other than: yes I have been wrong, and yes I do not think everything I say is the way it should be. I do know what I have experienced in four different countries.
I respect you too 7thson and no hard feelings. I don't think you're a racist or even ethnocentric....but if I didn't know you as well as I do , I would definitely have guessed that your words only thinly veil your complete hate of Islam, its followers, and everything its contributed to society.
I hate lack of freedom, plain and simple. We should all be born with the right to choose, many in the Muslim world do not get this right. Does that mean I hate Islam? If I did not care and love my fellow man why would I even be discusing this? I am certainly not one to make myself feel better by hating others for anything. I might disagree, but disagreement is not hate.:)
Texas: If what seems to be illegal activity is found to be the truth then the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints should be ashamed. I fully respect one's right to religious beliefs, but if it breaks the laws of the country you are in then you are breaking the law. Shame on these men, shame on them.
What a brainwashed country I live in, Donkey with a carrot in front of me we are....
http://thedailycolumns.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/hillary_clinton.jpg
That photo implies that Hillary needs to stop using chlorine bleach.
I don't believe I'm brainwashed. In fact, I'm 100% certain of it. I also believe that almost everybody else is. The flaw with my argument is that a brainwashed person would easily make it, and oftentimes does. Yikes!
FILMFREAK087
04-23-08, 01:45 AM
Both parties are completely full of s**t.
All the candidates are lying a**holes.
As far as the middleeast, well I don't live there so that's there problem, I worry about where I live.
All religion is brainwashing, it's just some is more abrasive than the others.
Religion is just a medievil form of politics.
-A cynical man's point of view :(
You probably should worry a little bit about where other people have to deal with their immediate problems. We would not be in Afghanistan or Iraq now if somebody in the Middle East/Asia didn't worry enough about where we live to arrange to fly jets into some of our iconic structures and thus completely screw with millions of peoples' lives involving family, retirement savings, the U.S. economy, and other banal problems, such as fuel/energy prices.
As far as the two-party system goes, I do agree that we need other viable parties. We need to strengthen our government and not weaken it by becoming more like our enemies. The problem with that is that it might involve another revolution, and we cannot deal with an internal one right now, as long as we have so many external ones. Americans Unite! Or something which can help out the world just as much. These are perilous times unless you're an anarchist.
FILMFREAK087
04-23-08, 02:03 AM
Well, they'll live over there how they want.
Do you really believe you can change their minds?
If so, you should get the nobel Prize.
We should worry more about OUR security in this country and a little less about what some third world dictator says. -IMHO
I would respectfully advise that you read Mark's post again, because I think you've missed his point, which I took to mean that "how they live over there" can and will effect us here. Unless I'm misunderstanding him, he's mentioning September 11th as an example of how why we have to be involved in what's happening overseas to some degree, because it's going to find its way to our shores eventually.
No, I don't believe we will change their minds, but that is exactly why they will continue to try to tear us down. You cannot defeat an enemy by ignoring them. You have to engage them in some way. I do not approve of the way we have engaged them thus far, but now that we have, we have to try to improve the situation. I'm all for bringing the troops home again, but all those people will have died and nothing will have been accomplished. We will have to start over from scratch or just get flushed down the toilet. I hate no win situations!
FILMFREAK087
04-23-08, 02:20 AM
But, like I said, they will always think the way they do.
So it will never end.
What happened in 2001 was done by a group of radicals, not a government. So it's equatible to after Pearl harbor, we attacked China, they are Asian too, but not the right group.
I just don't see the logic.
I think just lumping the middleeast together into one group is what is causing most of the problems.
You mean we attacked Japan? No, OK, I getcha. We went after the wrong people. Once again, I agree. You have to understand that until this country collapses, we are going to have to deal with terrorists. The rules have changed.
I agree with you that we need to differentiate people. The thing is that if the approved government sanctions were in place, 9/11 would never had happened. Those flippin' Saudis all learned to fly in the U.S. of A.! We taught them how to accomplish what they did.
FILMFREAK087
04-23-08, 02:26 AM
Yea...no matter who gets in office next, they got one hell of a mess to deal with. :(
John McClane
04-23-08, 02:27 AM
From the few posts I've read I feel like I should chime in with the following: both Islam and Christianity have condoned violence. It's clearly written in both the Bible and the Koran. Study the books before making a claim that religion doesn't have an effect on a state's violations when the states are deeply intertwined with one of the above religions.
A large portion of the religious population have arrived at a peaceful/moderate state, thankfully. However, the major problem still resides with these moderates. Respecting any one's beliefs, no matter how insane, and not taking part in critical discussion gives shelter for religious extremists. Also, people that try and rationalize violence in heavily religious countries, such as these Muslim states, by saying they do violence for political reasons, social reasons, or anything else are giving even more cover to extremists and refusing to see the actual problem; that problem is religious extremism.
FILMFREAK087
04-23-08, 02:31 AM
Religion IS a self-justification system.
But, politicians in many countries use religion as a tool for manipulation and as cover for political manuvers.
Well, most Muslim states have never felt the need to defend any of their stances. I don't mean to imply that they are somehow totalitarian, but I mainly mean that we don't especially understand their inner workings or how free they are. They could be freer than we are, but how would I know, if what goes on there is not allowed to be seen by Infidels.
However, yes, there are plenty of "Christians" down through the years who have committed violent acts and somehow tried to condone them when they go against everything which Jesus ever said. If you have faith in Jesus, you will not go around committing violent acts. You will accept that things will work themselves out and that something resembling justice will occur. I believe most major religions also agree with this policy. So, yes, John, it's the extremists who have the problems, and that's why they're extremists and why we always have to try to deal with them.
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye."
John McClane
04-23-08, 02:58 AM
However, yes, there are plenty of "Christians" down through the years who have committed violent acts and somehow tried to condone them when they go against everything which Jesus ever said.Hate to break it to you, but Jesus isn't exactly the best example for a non-violence stance on Christianity. But hey, I'm just sayin'... ;)
You don't like him bringing a sword when he returns? My quote is the way Christians are supposed to act. You don't judge. Others do that. I guess you have a vast knowledge of true Christianity though, so I'll defer to the better person here.
The Crusades are not the ultimate Christian reality. Corruption occurs everyday and everywhere, and luckily for many, they can quietly be corrupt and not have a religion which might allow them to be that way. A person who doesn't believe in God cannot plead innocent to any "religious hatred". They may hate ALL people who believe in some form of worship. Then again, they obviously worship Anti-Religion, so that's the same thing as the church of God without God, but I think some may believe it lets you off the hook so that you aren't responsible for anything which all other people are. Ha!
I'm not trying to tell people that you have to believe in something better than you. But you still have to take responsibility for being a human being. You cannot say that you are different than other humans because you DO NOT believe something they believe. The fact that people do not believe things which others do implies that they DO believe things which others DO NOT. No difference.
Are you going to quote Bertie Russell now?
Equilibrium
04-23-08, 03:25 AM
You don't like him bringing a sword when he returns? My quote is the way Christians are supposed to act. You don't judge. Others do that. I guess you have a vast knowledge of true Christianity though, so I'll defer to the better person here.
The Crusades are not the ultimate Christian reality. Corruption occurs everyday and everywhere, and luckily for many, they can quietly be corrupt and not have a religion which might allow them to be that way. A person who doesn't believe in God cannot plead innocent to any "religious hatred". They may hate ALL people who believe in some form of worship. Then again, they obviously worship Anti-Religion, so that's the same thing as the church of God without God, but I think some may believe it let's you off the hook so that you aren't responsible for anything which all other people are. Ha!
I'm not trying to tell people that you have to believe in something better than you. But you still have to take responsibility for being a human being. You cannot say that you are different than other humans because you DO NOT believe something they believe. The fact that people do not believe things which others do implies that they DO believe things which others DO NOT. No difference.
Are you going to quote Bertie Russell now?
In the same intellectual thread, Osama Bin Laden is not Islamic reality either and neither are fundamentalists.
That is total truth. I also want to apologize to John because I may agree with him, but he was too obscure for me to bite my tongue. But Equil, do you feel that an organized group of loving religiosos/spiritual people from all faiths can cause fundamentalists to stop what they're doing? I wish they could, but I don't see how.
adidasss
04-23-08, 05:52 AM
I would respectfully advise that you read Mark's post again, because I think you've missed his point, which I took to mean that "how they live over there" can and will effect us here. Unless I'm misunderstanding him, he's mentioning September 11th as an example of how why we have to be involved in what's happening overseas to some degree, because it's going to find its way to our shores eventually.
I'd just like to point out that your foreign policy was why things found their way to your shores. There aren't many people burning canadian, swiss or swedish flags or trying to destroy those countries...:\
John McClane
04-23-08, 10:28 AM
In the same intellectual thread, Osama Bin Laden is not Islamic reality either and neither are fundamentalists.Actually, I also hate to break it to you, but fundamentalists are people who read the Bible/Koran and believe *every* word, and that makes them a more accurate representation of their religion than moderates.
Mark: my head is still spinning from your last post. ;) I'll have to reply when I get home from school.
I'd just like to point out that your foreign policy was why things found their way to your shores. There aren't many people burning canadian, swiss or swedish flags or trying to destroy those countries...:\
This is, I'm sure you realize, a truly horrendous oversimplification of what is, in reality, a hopelessly complex situation. In this case "our foreign policy" refers to simply intervening when people are massacring each other. Have you read Bin Laden's 1998 fatwa? It makes clear that our mere presence in these places is apparently reason enough to murder thousands of our citizens, even when the alternative is to stand idly by while people are slaughtering each other.
This is a paradox of foreign policy, wherein even temporary humanitarian intervention has mind-boggling ripple effects which can obligate a country to commit further resources, or else withdraw almost completely from the world. I don't like it, but the alternative is to close ourselves off and take little to no notice when others are in turmoil. Sorry, but that's worse. At least now problems are being confronted and incremental progress is being made in some parts of the world.
Sir Toose
04-23-08, 12:07 PM
All religion is brainwashing, it's just some is more abrasive than the others.
Religion is just a medievil form of politics.
I'm assuming you mean 'organized' religion?
There's certainly nothing that warrants the term 'brainwashed' in a person seeking the truth of what or who they are within the context of the universe. When seeking those answers reilgion is bound to come into play because it's the oldest form of historical context that we have. Seeking personal truth is exactly the opposite as accepting someone elses.
Conversely, anyone could say that one who chooses to be dismissive of religion without taking a purposeful journey to discover truth for themselves, whatever their personal outcome, is brainwashed by the others who believe the like.
How many times, exactly, have you read religious texts and how have you applied them to your philosophy to qualify yourself as one who can say that it's "all brainwashing"?
Gas Prices, why?
Production is not askew to this level...must be Bush's fault.
I was not going to mention this, but hey might as well:
I get the feeling that the Obama/Wright controvesy is staged. I mean what better way to make a white man feel better than to have a black man agree with him?
I do not feel this way personally, I actually like Obama, but it is hard not to think some kind of fly has landed in the American oinment.
adidasss
04-30-08, 07:42 AM
This is, I'm sure you realize, a truly horrendous oversimplification of what is, in reality, a hopelessly complex situation. In this case "our foreign policy" refers to simply intervening when people are massacring each other. Have you read Bin Laden's 1998 fatwa? It makes clear that our mere presence in these places is apparently reason enough to murder thousands of our citizens, even when the alternative is to stand idly by while people are slaughtering each other.
This is a paradox of foreign policy, wherein even temporary humanitarian intervention has mind-boggling ripple effects which can obligate a country to commit further resources, or else withdraw almost completely from the world. I don't like it, but the alternative is to close ourselves off and take little to no notice when others are in turmoil. Sorry, but that's worse. At least now problems are being confronted and incremental progress is being made in some parts of the world.
I'm not sure if you're really this naive or if you're just intent on selling more bs propaganda. I realize the world needs a bully to keep everyone in check, but it's more than silly to claim that your foreign policies aren't governed by national interests first and foremost.
I'm not sure if you're really this naive or if you're just intent on selling more bs propaganda. I realize the world needs a bully to keep everyone in check, but it's more than silly to claim that your foreign policies aren't governed by national interests first and foremost.
You're shifting from critizing the actual policy, to criticizing what you presume are the things that motivates it. But since you raised the issue of motivation, I'll simply say that I think our pragmatic and humanitarian interests often overlap. For example, is it pure self-interest to defend Israel? They're our ally, but our interest in their survival is part of a general support of democracy in a largely undemocratic part of the world. This is in our national interest, but only in the sense that stability is in the interest of any prosperous nation, and that freedom is ultimately in the interest of everyone. So I'm not sure why it's supposed to be damning -- or relevant -- to point out that we're motivated by our "interests." It's not a revelation, and it doesn't change anything we're talking about.
Getting back on point: I responded to your claim that we were attacked because of "our foreign policy." Leaving aside how incredibly vague this is, I noted that even the most benign and more defensible aspects of our foreign policy have been reason enough for people to target us.
For example, I referred in my last post to Bin Laden's 1998 fatwa, in which he cites (among many other things, naturally) the defense of Isreal and the sanctions against Iraq as reasons to declare jihad on Americans. Sanctions, you might recall, were considered the alternative to war with Iraq. Yes, that's right: the thing we were supposed to keep doing instead of going to war with Iraq is one of the reasons Bin Laden gave for attacking us. I hope you're beginning to see my point: the moment you get involved at all, you're in all the way.
So, casually writing off 9/11 as an obvious consequence of our actions without really trying to understand what those actions were is doing an extreme disservice to a mind-numbingly complex issue. If you still think we brought it on ourselves, that's your right, but the reasoning behind that conclusion can stretch all the way back to even the tiniest bit of foreign involvement, to the point at which you may find yourself logically obligated to advocate isolationism to hold it all together.
Or, to put it a bit more succintly: the real naivete here lies in thinking we can simply close ourselves off to the rest of the world. Which, if done for the reasons you suggest, would also be completely self-interested anyway.
This all boils down to the simple fact that it's really easy to find fault with existing policy with glib comments and cynical asides, but a lot harder to propose an alternative that doesn't have its own problems.
Since "everything else" is in the thread title here I figured good as place as any to mention: the Microsoft attempt to buy Yahoo. I think Microsoft should have put out the few extra $$'s to gain Yahoo. I think a bit of pride and a lot of current day thinking stopped this buyout. I can say that I am glad that M.S. did not buyout Yahoo, but I think they should have. The Big 3: Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo are just that, the big 3. To eliminate or merge with one would have been a major event. I can almost see Google going for the gold and taking (buying) Yahoo out. Google & Microsoft....they are the future.....Yahoo will eventually be gone. Not the name, but the ownership.
Sir Toose
05-16-08, 01:10 PM
A "typical white person", such as myself, finds Obama to be more than just a little insulting.
Watch the Video (http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036)
Yes, I realize some of it is propaganda BUT some of it isn't as well.
adidasss
05-16-08, 02:22 PM
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc220/diezelpower/pucaodsmijeha.gifThat is the funniest thing I've seen all day. If I was an American that video alone would have made me vote for Obama...priceless...http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc220/diezelpower/radosnice.gif
Sir Toose
05-16-08, 02:29 PM
That's a pretty thin veil over your attempt to trigger me.
adidasss
05-16-08, 02:37 PM
You didn't think it was funny? It's like it came straight from the 50's, "BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS A COMMIE BASTARD AND HATES GOD AND AMERICA"...:laugh:
Sir Toose
05-16-08, 03:10 PM
No, the incredible depth of stupidity of the human animal doesn't incite my sense of humor at all.
adidasss
05-16-08, 03:13 PM
You mean on the part of the people who actually put together such a hilarious (and xenophobic) attempt at slanderous propaganda?http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc220/diezelpower/treptrep.gif
Sir Toose
05-16-08, 03:17 PM
Yes, that's precisely it. You get the prize today.
perhaps you could enlighten us to why you think it's so funny.
adidasss
05-16-08, 03:25 PM
I'd rather you enlighten us as to why you think a video that makes a point of Obama's connection to Islam as something negative is something anyone could take seriously...:yup:
Sir Toose
05-16-08, 03:30 PM
Well, your style has oft been that you like to let people make a stance while you sit on the sidelines and take potshots at them. Why don't you go ahead and commit? List out your points and I'll take on your role this time.
What's so funny about it? You said it's hilarious, tell us why.
adidasss
05-16-08, 03:53 PM
Uuu, someone's in a bad mood today, I like it!:randy:
Ok, well for one, it's the 50's propaganda style as I've mentioned before which made me chuckle from the start; there's the attempt at slander by blowing the most insignificant things out of proportion (such as the commie flag in one his campaign manager's office, which I guess makes poor Obama a dirty red), then there's the whole xenophobia thing which is so inane it's hilarious ("can we really have someone named Hussein as the president?!" asks the white (presumably) Christian female, the connection to Islam (my God, he went to an Islamic school as a child, he must be strapped with bombs! etc.), the illogical interpretation of his reverend's African-centered theology (from whom he's distanced himself long ago if I'm not mistaken), blowing his poor wife's words out of proportion (the woman clearly hates America), the focusing on insignificant matters such as refusal to wear an American flag as a pin, not holding his hand on his heart during the national anthem as some sort of proof that he's not as American as he should be etc.
Pretty much the only (slight) faux pas he did make was the "typical white person" comment, which was obviously a slip-up and taken rather out of context.
Now you...http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc220/diezelpower/treptrep.gif
Sir Toose
05-16-08, 04:41 PM
All right fair enough.
The list of things that bother me about this video, if they really need to be delineated are:
1). Obama makes an impassioned speech about the meaning of 'words' and how they mean things but he hides from his own. In particular, he said that Reverend Wright is his spiritual mentor and has been for twenty years. Yes it was his 'reverend' who made incendiary remarks about white people but it was Obama who said, with his own words, that Wright speaks for him/teaches him on a spiritual level. This is not a casual relationship and it cannot be minimized. He only publicly distanced himself after he saw that the relationship might hurt his chances for gaining office. His book, which I read, is not about racial equality but rather about racial advantage for anyone who is not white. Hilarious huh? What's funnier is the stupid sheeple here who haven't even read his 'words' and are baaaa-ing out their support for this guy on the basis that the media likes him so the public should too.
2). The fact that he won't identify with America by accepting some basic and long standing customs (wearing a lapel pin, saluting the flag) makes me truly wonder WHY he wants to be president of a country that he and his wife clearly dislike. Why is no one asking that question? By not saluting the flag it suggests that he doesn't respect the blood that was shed that allows him the ability to stand in front of it. He says his platform is 'change' but if you read through his web site it looks like mostly status quo to me. "I will bring the troops home immediately" ... "I will continue the fight to eradicate Al Queda" ... WTF, how can you do one without the other? He's full of crap and he's intentionally dishonest about it and people are too stupid to read in this country.
3). People say what they really mean when they aren't thinking about it. Obama said "typical white person" and I don't believe it was an innocent mistake. It's something he's used to saying and he slipped up. Also, he condemns Imus for making a 'slip up' and says he shouldn't be allowed in the public eye. I shouldn't even need at this point to start up on the 'reverend' Wright. Hypocrisy is hilarious too, I think.
As I said before, I realize that some of it is propaganda. I don't care much about the muslim angle or anything that Ann Coulter says about his name etc. I care about what the man does and says and I care about how stupid people are about who and what he is.
adidasss
05-16-08, 05:42 PM
1). Obama makes an impassioned speech about the meaning of 'words' and how they mean things but he hides from his own. Valid point, but one line taken out of context certainly shouldn't be enough for anyone to disqualify him as a potential candidate. I'm sure every single one of your former and particularly your current president have made plenty of blunders during their career. In particular, he said that Reverend Wright is his spiritual mentor and has been for twenty years. Yes it was his 'reverend' who made incendiary remarks about white people but it was Obama who said, with his own words, that Wright speaks for him/teaches him on a spiritual level. This is not a casual relationship and it cannot be minimized. He only publicly distanced himself after he saw that the relationship might hurt his chances for gaining office. I think it's quite possible for someone to take certain spiritual advice and distance themselves from some other opinions. From what I understand, the controversial views of reverend Wright were secular, not religious. But if his elaborate denouncement made in the now famous race speech haven't convinced you of his good intentions I certainly don't know what will. :| His book, which I read, is not about racial equality but rather about racial advantage for anyone who is not white. Hilarious huh? What's funnier is the stupid sheeple here who haven't even read his 'words' and are baaaa-ing out their support for this guy on the basis that the media likes him so the public should too.
Haven't read it but somehow I doubt what you say is true, at least based on his views expressed in the speech about race.
2). The fact that he won't identify with America by accepting some basic and long standing customs (wearing a lapel pin, saluting the flag) makes me truly wonder WHY he wants to be president of a country that he and his wife clearly dislike. Ever heard of constructive criticism? Why is no one asking that question? By not saluting the flag it suggests that he doesn't respect the blood that was shed that allows him the ability to stand in front of it. I think you're reading into it what you want to, because that's certainly not what I took that to mean, and I'm pretty positive that's not what he meant to imply.
3). People say what they really mean when they aren't thinking about it. Obama said "typical white person" and I don't believe it was an innocent mistake. It's something he's used to saying and he slipped up. I will have to ask you to cite other instances where he says the same thing...granted, I only superficially follow the American election, but I think I would have heard of this. Unless you know something we don't? Also, he condemns Imus for making a 'slip up' and says he shouldn't be allowed in the public eye. I shouldn't even need at this point to start up on the 'reverend' Wright. Hypocrisy is hilarious too, I think. I had no idea who this Imus character is but after wiki-ing him, it seems a bit of a stretch to compare an open racist, misogynist, homophobe and anti-semite to someone who on one occasion ('that I've heard of anyway) happened to make an "awkward" statement.
I care about what the man does and says and I care about how stupid people are about who and what he is. You're right, maybe he is a God hating dirty red who eats small (white) children for breakfast and spits on the graves of American soldiers.:indifferent:
I guess America really is ready to have the first black president. :rolleyes:
Piddzilla
05-17-08, 07:15 AM
Even Fox News would be too sober to publish a segment like the one from Eyeblast. It's a pretty outrageous piece of work and I am quite surprised that you, Toose, who are a smart man, builds your argumentation around it.
Historically as well as in the present, every American president has been a white man. No matter how liberal or how tolerant the president has been, he's always been the president of white men. It's been and it continues to be a white male capitalist hegemony. When someone comes along that represents all of those who stand besides this tradition, and not only that but someone who also possesses the ability to attract followers of the old hegemony, that person natrually becomes a threat to the system. And everything that represents change is being turned around and spinned around to be about extremism, terrorism and anti-americanism. Obama is being slandered for being unpatriotic and such and such just because he's not wearing pins and holding his hands in the right position during the national anthem and god knows what. Can we move on to things that matters? Perhaps Obama represents all those people who actually believe that real politics are about something more than just a façade and those people who would like to expose what's behind that façade? I think the man is the most exciting and refreshing thing to hit the international political scene in a very very long time. I'd vote for him.
christine
05-17-08, 11:07 AM
"Lorne Baxter" (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/behind-the-obam.html) well he would make films like that wouldn't he? and what a nasty little piece of work that video was. So what if someone doesn't put their hand over their heart when the national anthem is sung, does everyone do that and everyone wear a US flag pin too? is it that important? Seems a bit strange to me criticising him for that.
As for him going to an Islamic school for two years in Indonesia, well given that his dad's a Muslim as are 86% of Indonesians it'd be strange if he didn't attend an Islamic school wouldn't it?
Also it might be a wise decision to sit down with terrorists and negotiate. Seems the opposite hasn't worked too well so far, and negotiation has worked before.
If he lays out a detailed plan for major issues, we all know the big ones, and the plans seem realistic then I could see myself voting for Obama. He has great ideas and a wonderful way of rasing the patriotic hackles of many Americans tired of the status quo, but can he deliver? Time will tell, but if he wants my vote he needs to start digging a little deeper into the hows.
Sir Toose
05-17-08, 01:02 PM
7thson, he (Obama) has a downloadable .pdf on his site (Blueprint for Change (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf)) that details nearly everything he says he would do. Most of it, to me, is pie-in-the-sky and would require a lot of money to accomplish. We all know where that money would have to come from.
As for the rest of it, I'm just not going to get into one of those things where people post multitudes of links that aren't read and argue endlessly in circles (myself included).
One thing I've learned in my time on this planet is that you can't tell anyone anything they aren't ready to hear, myself definitely included. Adi, Pidd, christine etc could show me evidence that Obama is the second coming of Christ himself and I wouldn't believe it because my perception of the guy is based in my truth and in my interpretation of how I see him based on what I've heard/read/seen.
Piddy, my interpretations of the guy are not based on that video but rather on my research which is touched on in the video. I think the guy is a racist and he's been indoctrinated into a belief system that doesn't particularly care for people like me. It's simply my opinion.
I have nothing against the guy based on his race, it doesn't even factor for me. I would vote for Alan Keyes or Colin Powell if they were to run because they are more in line philosophically with me than Obama whose record shows him to be very far to the left of the spectrum. I wish either of those two guys were running on the republican ticket as I'd much prefer either to McCain.
The bottom line for me though is that I believe the whole system is corrupt and anyone who could and would institute real change doesn't get on the ballot. If Obama wins all of the pie in the sky stuff is going to get back burnered.
7thson, he (Obama) has a downloadable .pdf on his site (Blueprint for Change (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf)) that details nearly everything he says he would do. Most of it, to me, is pie-in-the-sky and would require a lot of money to accomplish. We all know where that money would have to come from.
Thanks Toose, I have seen this, but it needs a heck of a lot of fine tuning.
Powdered Water
05-17-08, 01:17 PM
The bottom line for me though is that I believe the whole system is corrupt and anyone who could and would institute real change doesn't get on the ballot. If Obama wins all of the pie in the sky stuff is going to get back burnered.
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner folks! That's weird, you mean I'm not the only one that thinks the system needs a little... shall we say, work?
Piddzilla
05-18-08, 07:44 PM
Most of it, to me, is pie-in-the-sky and would require a lot of money to accomplish. We all know where that money would have to come from.
It's a matter of priorities, wouldn't you say? You're a very wealthy country and even though you have relatively low taxes the government has billions to spend. You guys can afford to make the lives a little easier for those living on the rock bottom.
One thing I've learned in my time on this planet is that you can't tell anyone anything they aren't ready to hear, myself definitely included.
Exactly. Since Obama is black there is no way he could speak about "the black experience" without someone being able to spin that around to being reversed racism. No matter how hard Obama is trying to overbridge the differences between white and black culture there will always be room for interpreting "typical white person" or "he's a very articulate man" to be about prejudice about "the other". You can't be told these things because it's another way to tell the story that makes you feel uncomfortable and it sends a threatening ring into your ears. It's different and not what you're used to and that's why I think you don't like him. Which, of course, is very understandable.
Adi, Pidd, christine etc could show me evidence that Obama is the second coming of Christ himself and I wouldn't believe it because my perception of the guy is based in my truth and in my interpretation of how I see him based on what I've heard/read/seen.
Well, I wouldn't say he's the second coming... And I think it's just a matter of values. What makes you feel bad about him is probably the same things that makes me feel good about him. Knowing the history you and me share, my friend, I've learned that even if you're a pretty decent old guy we aren't exactly sharing the same political values. ;D
Piddy, my interpretations of the guy are not based on that video but rather on my research which is touched on in the video. I think the guy is a racist and he's been indoctrinated into a belief system that doesn't particularly care for people like me. It's simply my opinion.
I don't know exactly what you mean about "people like me". If you mean white people in general, I think you're on thin ice. But if you mean people who like certain values and traditions to remain exactly as they've been for the last couple of hundred years, I think you're right - I don't think Obama care too much about that kind of people.
But on the other side, George W Bush, and most other presidents and major politicians before him, were probably indoctrinated into a belief system - they even created that belief system - that doesn't particularly care for people like Obama. There are millions of Americans, I would guess, that experience the current administration as a racist administration or an unfair administration.
I don't understand the racist part though. You have to explain to me what exactly he has said or done that is racist.
I have nothing against the guy based on his race, it doesn't even factor for me. I would vote for Alan Keyes or Colin Powell if they were to run because they are more in line philosophically with me than Obama whose record shows him to be very far to the left of the spectrum. I wish either of those two guys were running on the republican ticket as I'd much prefer either to McCain.
Well, that's one thing. Vote for McCain as much as you want - obviuosly he's your guy in this one. I just think the video segment you posted was a really low cheap shot (by the ones who made it) and nothing anyone should pay too much attention too.
The bottom line for me though is that I believe the whole system is corrupt and anyone who could and would institute real change doesn't get on the ballot. If Obama wins all of the pie in the sky stuff is going to get back burnered.
He he... I just spent some time in Russia.. There you can talk about corruption. Some Russians even viewed corruption as a perfect example of a well functioning democracy. "If you can pay the police to let you go, then you got control over your own life!".
christine
05-19-08, 06:50 PM
I don't know exactly what you mean about "people like me". If you mean white people in general, I think you're on thin ice. But if you mean people who like certain values and traditions to remain exactly as they've been for the last couple of hundred years, I think you're right - I don't think Obama care too much about that kind of people.
But on the other side, George W Bush, and most other presidents and major politicians before him, were probably indoctrinated into a belief system - they even created that belief system - that doesn't particularly care for people like Obama. There are millions of Americans, I would guess, that experience the current administration as a racist administration or an unfair administration.
True. The further up the ladder they get, the more they lose connection with real people on the ground..if they were ever there in the first place.
Aww, Toosey seems to have left the thread for a bit...
Nevertheless... I would like to offer up my thanks for that video. It was a work of 'common genius', and I loved it :)
---
It used a dictionary-style definition at one point - FACT
That's about as balanced as its presentation got - FACT
Ann Coulter is the Devil - (ACCIDENTAL)- FACT
---
I haven't followed the recent mule manoeuvrings with anything like close attention, so I would like to know a few things tho, if anyone's feeling informative...
The primary one is: on what level has Obama 'distanced himself' from Wright? Can anyone clarify? Or is it all as clear as butter?
Also...
1) His book, which I read, is not about racial equality but rather about racial advantage for anyone who is not white.
Do you mean he promotes 'positive discrimination'? IE artificially making sure job induction reflects local demographics? (That's the 'equal opportunities employment' system we've got in the UK - and i was under the impression the US ran a similar set up).
If it's that, then it's murky waters, but i think it's a necessary tonic.
We could chew over that particular piece o' jerky for a long while, but i'd like to know if that's his stance - and to hear a bigger take on the book from you, if yer willing :)
2). The fact that he won't identify with America by accepting some basic and long standing customs (wearing a lapel pin, saluting the flag) makes me truly wonder WHY he wants to be president of a country that he and his wife clearly dislike.
The Wired article that christine linked seems to suggest the 'hand on heart' thing isn't an issue. The pin thing... well... i thought the the cartoon they used in the vid hit all the right buttons ;)
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/3927/obamatempty7.th.png (http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=obamatempty7.png)
He says his platform is 'change' but if you read through his web site it looks like mostly status quo to me. "I will bring the troops home immediately" ... "I will continue the fight to eradicate Al Queda" ... WTF, how can you do one without the other? He's full of crap and he's intentionally dishonest about it and people are too stupid to read in this country.
Can't see anything on the crap/change front that differentiates him from any other mainstream politician.
The 'pull out the troops'/'continue to fight' Al Qaeda thing doesn't seem inherently contradictory tho. Depends on the what kind of infrastructure he wants to leave behind to deal with all the 'invasion-created' 'Al Qaeda' 'on the ground' :p (You can 'quote me' on that ;))
3). People say what they really mean when they aren't thinking about it. Obama said "typical white person" and I don't believe it was an innocent mistake.
Most interesting bit of the 'Obama debacle', and that vid. IE the fact that he's AfroAmerican.
(Shame the vid lopped off any context that might have helped to clarify the context completely - and that i'm too lazy to search for more info ;))
I imagine the 'typical white person' thing is a genuine distinction in his mind (with the rider that 'he isn't that' etc). Coz we all have such distinctions in our head.
But that hardly proves he's one of Wright's 'Black Panthers', or 'negatively discriminatory' in his actions.
And even if he were, it's still begs the question: How differently (and if you like, how 'negatively') could he act if he were to reach presidential office?
I imagine the 'typical white person' thing is a genuine distinction in his mind (with the rider that 'he isn't that' etc). Coz we all have such distinctions in our head.
This, in itself, did not bother me at all. What does bother me is that if a white politician said "typical black/Asian/gay/woman/etc..." They would probably get crucified no matter how they meant it.
Whats wrong with being typical anyway? I am a typical redneck, typical Steelers fan, typical man, it pretty much stops there though.;)
This, in itself, did not bother me at all. What does bother me is that if a white politician said "typical black/Asian/gay/woman/etc..." They would probably get crucified no matter how they meant it.
Isn't that just because as the majority you can take more blows? Whereas minorities will (understandably) bristle more when poked?
?
Isn't that just because as the majority you can take more blows? Whereas minorities will (understandably) bristle more when poked?
?
So you are saying Obama did "poke"? I was saying if he meant nothing by it why can't another person do the same. it just would not work that way.
So you are saying Obama did "poke"? I was saying if he meant nothing by it why can't another person do the same. it just would not work that way.
You could say it 'should' work that way. But you could also say 'colour and creed should influence no man'. But it ain't that way.
Facts on the ground. And such.
(Incidentally, i'm not saying Obama 'pokes' more than the next man ;))
I am just saying people need to lighten up on all sides. At the same time I certainly do know that racism is out there, but just because racism exists does not mean I am part of the KKK. ;)
I am just saying people need to lighten up on all sides. At the same time I certainly do know that racism is out there, but just because racism exists does not mean I am part of the KKK. ;)
At no point has Obama accused you of being such.
(But a Korean man on my street just did so. I suggest you get someone to stand passively on his Visa until he sees sense ;))
Holden Pike
05-22-08, 09:46 PM
"But your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven anymore
They're already overcrowded
from your dirty little war
Now Jesus don't like killin'
No matter what the reason's for,
And your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more...."
- John Prine
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:OYmpMl-8O0L1RM:http://fruitfly.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/usaflagpin.jpg
"Put a flag on your vehicle. It's literally the least you can do."
- Bill Maher
Gols, I certainly do miss yakkin' it up with you. We do not see eye to eye a lot, but you make me laugh no matter how much you put me down. :)
Gols, I certainly do miss yakkin' it up with you. We do not see eye to eye a lot, but you make me laugh no matter how much you put me down. :)
Hey D, there's no put downs, i just like dancing around in the multicoloured-stew with you :) ;)
Sir Toose
05-23-08, 11:53 AM
Aww, Toosey seems to have left the thread for a bit...
I had a short burst of energy and a brief lapse in judgement in posting in this thread. There's just too much explanation required to even get on a reasonable facsimile of common ground and I don't have the energy for it.
It's good to see you though.
Earlier Wednesday, in an interview with The New York Times, Obama declined the invitation to take a joint trip with McCain but said he was considering visiting U.S. troops overseas this summer all the same once he secures the Democratic nomination.
“Iraq would obviously be at the top of the list of stops,” he told The Times.
He said if he goes, “I’m not there to try to score political points or perform.”
http://www.wavcentral.com/sounds/movies/blue_heaven/mbhreally.mp3
Sir Toose
05-29-08, 04:21 PM
[CENTER]Earlier Wednesday, in an interview with The New York Times, Obama declined the invitation to take a joint trip with McCain but said he was considering visiting U.S. troops overseas this summer all the same once he secures the Democratic nomination.
“Iraq would obviously be at the top of the list of stops,” he told The Times.
He said if he goes, “I’m not there to try to score political points or perform.”
Seems to me they could 'carpool' and save some valuable resources. It's always the same, do what I say not what I do.
By the by, thanks for the comments from those who sent them. I think I gave the impression that this thread somehow upset me. It didn't, and I think you all who've expressed an opinion that differs from mine probably have valid reasons for doing so (which is based upon your experience) as I feel I have valid reasons for my opinions. I just don't want to beat my head on any wall trying to convince anyone else that my opinion is the correct one. It is the correct one for me and I can assure you that it changes often enough. As I've gotten older I've done my best to assure myself that I'm not becoming mentally inflexible. I really do look at at all differing opinions and assess how they fit into my own beliefs and then adjust accordingly as I'm sure you all do as well.
So that's it, I'll be continuing to offer my opinions... I just won't be doing the research projects and link posting and yadda yadda yadda that these things sometimes turn into.
Take me with a grain of salt as I really don't know ****. :)
Take me with a grain of salt as I really don't know ****. :)
Say... I resemble that remark!
Random Articles:
Government in Action!
In April, Army medic Monica Brown was awarded the Silver Star for bravery for selflessly subjecting herself to enemy fire in order to treat fallen comrades in battle in Afghanistan. However, two days after her heroics, she had been ordered home, against her will, because generals were nervous that a female appeared to be "in combat," which violates Army rules. [Washington Post, 5-1-08]
By contrast, in April (according to The Buffalo News), the Army, citing personnel shortages, ordered honorably discharged soldier James Raymond back to duty, even though he is on medical disability for a knee injury and loss of hearing suffered in Afghanistan. (Soldiers on "Readiness Reserve" are still eligible for duty if necessary.) [Buffalo News, 4-16-08]
Powdered Water
05-30-08, 09:26 AM
So are women allowed in the military or not?
WSSlover
06-01-08, 02:54 PM
Well, with conflicts such as these minorities against the war really have no power. You saw what happened with Vietnam, a minority quickly turned into a majority. Eventually, we pulled out of there. It's really only a matter of time before the majority of this country gets their way. I foresee a future for Iraq much like Vietnam. Then again, I could just be cynical.
But then again, John McClane, you could be right.
WSSlover
06-01-08, 03:00 PM
Quite frankly, I don't trust any of the three presidential candidates that we've got right now, and I'm seriously considering going to the polls in November and writing somebody in, if one gets the drift.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivers a fiery speech near Tehran, slamming Israel and predicting 'the fall of the satanic power of the United States.'
This is the leader of a major country, not some wannabe 4th in command radical of a 3rd world country. Why no outrage at what he is spouting? More people hate Bush than even know who this guy is. The U.N. itself has blasted him, but still no mainstream condemnation of this despot. He hangs gays, and admits it, he hates Jews, and admits it, etc....... There is more news about how Obama sat in a pew for years and did not know where he was then this. Are we as a "world" going to wake up, or just let this man do what he wants?
He's been doing it consistently for about three years now, so I don't expect any major responses other than what's happened thus far. Talk is cheap anyway. If he were a U.S. citizen, he could say the same thing, based on the First Ammendment, but no, I think he'd be hidden away somewhere by now (by the Feds) if he was an American citizen for some kind of terrorist connections.
Now, don't get upset with me, but this Iranian President did speak last September at both the U.N. and the college my daughter hopes to attend, Columbia University. My daughter even did a project on the guy, so this family is well-aware of what this guy's beliefs are, and yes, we think he has several screws loose.
adidasss
06-03-08, 05:10 AM
[CENTER] Are we as a "world" going to wake up, or just let this man do what he wants?[/LEFT]
Are you proposing another invasion? Because that one would be a little harder to pull off...
Are you proposing another invasion? Because that one would be a little harder to pull off...
Not at this point, let the U.N. try to do its job, but to ignore him is foolish. What should we do? Wait for him to get a nuke and use it on Israel.
adidasss
06-03-08, 07:30 AM
Nope, you should invade and liberate the Iranians...:yup:
Piddzilla
06-03-08, 11:16 AM
I don't know exactly "what to do about Iran" but I don't agree that what Ahmadinejad is saying about this and that doesn't get any attention. But that Iran, the very definition of a theocracy, is throwing out crazy statements left to right isn't exactly news. Ever since the Islamic Revolution in 1978-1979 they haven't exactly been wild about the USA or Israel.
The difference now, if you ask me, is that the current Iranian regime - despite all the slandering - seems to be a lot more pragmatic and reasonable. Yes, reasonable. ;) I think the difference between Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khomeini, for instance, is that Ahmadinejad is slightly more in favour of progress at the expense of the religious influence on everything in Iran. I think he understands the possibilities that Iran's got but at the same time realizes the importance of appearing as a strong leader who's not afraid of the West and the USA in particular. I hope, and actually believe, that he's a populist primarily and a fanatic fundamentalist secondly. With the right kind of diplomacy (and horse trading) and with a little bit of fingerspitzgefühl, perhaps we could start something that in the future could develop to a more normal relationship between Iran and the rest of the world.
I don't know exactly "what to do about Iran" but I don't agree that what Ahmadinejad is saying about this and that doesn't get any attention.
Well it is a bit more than the everyday saber rattling. There is proof (so I am led to believe by many sources, they could be wrong I am sure, but you have to rely on something and the sources are more than just the U.S.) that Iran has helped with weapons that are used directly against the U.S. and Iraqi police force in the war in Iraq. He repeatedly snubs the U.N.
The "attention" I am speaking of is not media attention, but outrage or anger, or something other than complancey. We all know that the Russians have supplied many weapons and antimissle systems right? Do not forget China, they are trading support of nuclear developement in Iran for oil. Do not even get me started on the Cuban Iranian connection.
So yes he is getting plenty of news time, but does anyone really care? We should.
Piddzilla
06-04-08, 08:02 AM
Well it is a bit more than the everyday saber rattling. There is proof (so I am led to believe by many sources, they could be wrong I am sure, but you have to rely on something and the sources are more than just the U.S.) that Iran has helped with weapons that are used directly against the U.S. and Iraqi police force in the war in Iraq.
Would you prefer Iran to be in Iraq fighting you guys directly? I honestly can't take an American seriously when he expresses concern over a country supporting any one of your enemies with weapons. You are aware of, I'm sure, the irritation - to put it mildly - the arab and muslim world is feeling about the American presence in Iraq. I would be very surprised if it turns out that Iran is not supporting any side in Iraq.
You are the world's number one super power but you can't expect all other countries to refrain from using force. If you are feeling worried about Iran, how do you think the Iranians feel about the USA?
The "attention" I am speaking of is not media attention, but outrage or anger, or something other than complancey. We all know that the Russians have supplied many weapons and antimissle systems right? Do not forget China, they are trading support of nuclear developement in Iran for oil. Do not even get me started on the Cuban Iranian connection.
So yes he is getting plenty of news time, but does anyone really care? We should.
I'm pretty sure the pre-emptive strike card is not the one any American top politician or general would like to play right now. It's not exactly hip.
Russians are pissed because they are feeling mistreated by the US. When the Soviet Union fell it was agreed that NATO would not expand. But that is exactly what is happening when Russian neighbours and former allies and Soviet states are joining NATO. They are not very happy about the new missile ramps in central Europe either. So, perhaps to get even, they trade with the Iranians. If Iran becomes a more "normal" state, the Russians will not allow another nearby influential country to join the American club. Then they want to be Iran's best friend. At least that's my guess.
China is a modernity phenomenon and the economic growth and development is extraordinary. I would guess that the deal they get with Iran is much more profitable than the one they would get with USA, their biggest economic enemy, wouldn't you agree?
Cuba, well what can I say.... Are you really surprised that they are doing business with Iran? Or any enemy of the US? Or any country whatsoever that are not effected by the US lead sanctions?
The world is full with countries with tense relations to the USA. The reasons varies but, let's be honest, American made its own bed in most cases. Do you really believe that an attack on Iran would make things better in the longrun?
If USA had left the secular but uncomfortably leftleaning Mosaddeq alone perhaps you wouldn't feel threatened by ranting fundamentalists today. But instead Operation Ajax, directly supported by President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Churchill and carried out by the CIA, put an end to yet another popular and modern leader of the 3rd World. Wouldn't it be great if all those countries that during the 20th century were moving towards democracy, modernity and independence had been left alone?
You are aware of, I'm sure, the irritation - to put it mildly - the arab and muslim world is feeling about the American presence in Iraq.?
I hear this quite a lot, but I listen to the Iraqi people moreso than anyone else, as they are the one's directly impacted. Every single one of my friends that live there have been greatful for the removal of Saddam. Why do we not see this on the news. It is all about how terrible the USA is yet so many want to live here, because of opportunity, which is exactly what many Iraqis have gained unless of course we bail on them. Iraq has been in a state of war almost every year since 1958. So the idea that they would be better off if left alone just does not fly with me. Certainly a different approach would have been better, but to do nothing would be worse.
By the way, I never said we should attack Iran, and unless they act directly to carry out any of their threats, then we have many other options. I just do not want to wait to use those options.
The primary one is: on what level has Obama 'distanced himself' from Wright? Can anyone clarify? Or is it all as clear as butter?
I'd be glad to clarify. :)
The basic facts (which, as far as I can tell, no one disputes) are this:
Obama attended Wright's church for about 20 years.
Obama claims he was not in attendance for the most controversial sermons. As far as I know, we have no reason to doubt him.
Obama nevertheless knew that controversial views were being aired from the pulpit.The degree to which Obama knew about these views is debatable, but the evidence is pretty stark. For example, Wright was specifically uninvited from appearing at Obama's announcement of his run for President, because he was seen as potentially controversial. And, of course, reason dictates that someone of Obama's intelligence and ambition must have known what was being said...if not when it happened, certainly by the time he'd become a U.S. Senator in 2002.
After that, it gets a but murkier. Obama largely avoided the issue with statements about how lots of people don't agree with their pastors, etc. But as more and more people heard the audio of these "sermons," the issue started to become damaging to Obama. He then gave his speech on race relations in America, in an attempt to address the issue.
In this speech (http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26pagewantedQ3D3&OP=32d0f443Q2FQ22Q26@uQ22B,_R5,,)WQ22WQ24Q24iQ22Q24Q23Q22piQ22qRQ22Q7E,tw)w_RQ22pi)@G)b,uodoQ2Bc)dt) , he said "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother." The "him" is Reverend Wright.
About a week later, Wright suggested in an interview that Obama had to distance himself, because he's a politician. Obama then, well, disowned him, suddenly suggesting that the man he saw in that interview was "not the man I met 20 years ago." As far as I can see, Wright said nothing highly controversial in this interview...certainly nothing rivaling the sermons we'd been hearing about. Yet Obama found reason to suddenly disown the man he had just said he could not disown.
It's a pretty stark contradiction, and one he doesn't seem to have been called on. Apparently Wright calling America "The US of KKK A" and screaming "God d**n America" from the pulpit (among many other things) wasn't enough to warrant a disowning. But suggesting that maybe Obama was being politically expedient? That makes him show Wright the door.
Personally, I think anyone being truly honest with themselves has to admit that "hey, I don't agree with everything my pastor says" is an extremely disingenuous response. Obama attended this church for decades, and must have known what was being said. Wright presided over his wedding, and was on his campaign's "Spiritual Advisory Committe," as well. Obama has also referred to him as his "mentor." So it's kind of stunning to hear him downplay his connection with the man with a straight face. At absolute best, he was willing to look the other way while Wright exemplified all the things he has said he is against.
Can't see anything on the crap/change front that differentiates him from any other mainstream politician.
I agree, but he's running on a platform of change, and it is often suggested that he's a new type of politician who's going to heal old divisions, usher in a new era, etc. All of these things are a little disingenuous if he's willing to engage in all the same political maneuvering as everyone else. If he's not a fundamentally different candidate, what exactly makes him such a fine choice for President? He has very little experience and no executive experience whatsoever. And surely we can't brand him as America's savior just because he's an exceptional public speaker.
The 'pull out the troops'/'continue to fight' Al Qaeda thing doesn't seem inherently contradictory tho. Depends on the what kind of infrastructure he wants to leave behind to deal with all the 'invasion-created' 'Al Qaeda' 'on the ground' :p (You can 'quote me' on that ;))
I agree, it's not inherently contradictory. What is contradictory is the apparent admiration he has for General Patraeus, despite the fact that he has directly contradicted him on fundamental matters relating to Iraq.
Obama, I think we can safely say, managed to topple the heavily favored Clinton campaign largely because he was against the War in Iraq from the start. Clinton voted for it, and he hammered her on that throughout the primaries. Given how close the race was, that was certainly the difference. The problem is that he was also against the troop surge which has resulted in a borderline miraculous reduction in violence.
McCain has pointed out, perceptively I think, that Obama hasn't visited in Iraq in years, and makes no acknowledgement of the progress there. The situation has, I'm sure we can agree, gradually evolved over time (both in good ways and bad), but Obama's position hasn't. He has banked almost completely on the public's general opposition and the fact that he opposed it from the beginning, even though the debate now is about how we proceed from here. His premise is that he showed superior judgment before the war, and therefore should be trusted to handle it from here on out. Critics point out that opposition doesn't necessarily equal superior judgment, that he was wrong about the surge, and that you can't tout judgment based on the result of a single issue.
The only exception is Obama's suggestion that he would be open to leaving troops in Iraq if Al-Qaeda were to form a base there. The McCain campaign was quick to point out that Al-Qaeda already had a base there, and that this new flexibility heavily modified his repeated promises of a speedy withdrawal.
But that hardly proves he's one of Wright's 'Black Panthers', or 'negatively discriminatory' in his actions.
That's quite true. I'm not accusing him of being a black nationalist, though I'm rather upset that apparently the issue can't even be raised. His "mentor" espouses it. His wife wrote a controversial paper on race in college. Since when were men such islands that their choice of mentor/pastor and spouse didn't tell us anything at all about them? It is unwarranted to accuse him of holding such radical views, but it's downright bizarre to suggest that the issue must not be broached. Anyone who tolerates the presence of controversial figures should always be willing to account for it.
I don't know what Barack Obama believes, and I won't pretend to. But I know that he has kept some very bad company, and been extremely tolerant of actions that most people rightly regard as intolerable. I'm of the opinion that he did this not because he's a Black Panther, or a Muslim, or anything silly like that. I think he did it because he's had political aspirations for his entire adult life, and one eye on the Presidency since he joined the Senate. I think his primary goal has been to avoiding alienating anyone; even people who he should be standing up to.
There's a lot more to go into here, from William Ayers, to the downright Messianic tone of the campaign at times, but I've already expounded on the original question way, way too much. :)
I think it's quite possible for someone to take certain spiritual advice and distance themselves from some other opinions. From what I understand, the controversial views of reverend Wright were secular, not religious. But if his elaborate denouncement made in the now famous race speech haven't convinced you of his good intentions I certainly don't know what will. :|
I agree that you can take "certain spiritual advice" from someone and not subscribe to their other opinions. But as I mentioned in my last reply, this goes beyond simply knowing the man. He attended Wright's church for 20 years, had Wright preside over his wedding, put him on his campaign's Spiritual Advisory Committe, and referred to him as his "mentor." I don't know what "denouncement" you're referring to; he used that speech on race to specifically say that he could NOT disown Wright. He went back on this a week later, of course, when Wright dragged the issue up again.
Haven't read it but somehow I doubt what you say is true, at least based on his views expressed in the speech about race.
Allow me to play devil's advocate: why should we inherently believe everything he says in that speech? If his personal history involves the repeated tolerance or apparent indifference to certain people and views, shouldn't that be considered a superior barometer of his views than a speech he gave in the middle of an extremely tight campaign battle?
You're right, maybe he is a God hating dirty red who eats small (white) children for breakfast and spits on the graves of American soldiers.:indifferent:
Heh. :) Nah. But I do think he'll tolerate the things he says he detests for the sake of politics, attempt to implement a number of increasingly socialist economic policies, and possibly display the same kind of stubborness over Iraq that we saw from the Bush administration at first.
I guess America really is ready to have the first black president. :rolleyes:
I think we were ready back in 2000 when "Draft Colin Powell" movements started sprouting up.
Regardless, I think the ideal situation is not one where we simply elect a black President, but one where we elect a President with no regard for whether or not he or she is black.
Piddzilla
07-01-08, 03:59 PM
I both understand and don't understand the controversy surrounding Obama and reverend Wright.
I totally understand why those quotes by Wright (taken out of context I suppose) are controversial. But at the same time, I can't see why people get so upset about them. Is it weird to experience oppression and be angry about it? Or to condemn instead of bless America for the war in Iraq?
Not a very wise or politically correct choice of words.... But it's not like Bush is being held responsible for every racist, homophobic, bigott, xenophobic or plain stupid remark every republican or their pastor has ever made.
In Sweden there's this party, KD (Kristdemokraterna - The Christian Democrats), with roots in the Pentecostal Movement, whose members regularly claim the one wackier thing than the other. People know this and you know what? If they don't like it they vote for some other party.
If you think Obama's too radical then vote for another old man!
And that's another thing about Obama.... That he's supposed to be such a radical. He's not. I haven't read any of the man's books but I've read some reviews. Besides from being impressed with Obama's skills as a writer and thinker the reviews I've read have also expressed an impression of him as a moderate liberal with rather conservative thoughts on traditional values. He seems to favour consensus over conflict and to be looking for the common denominators of the left and right, and then effectively neutralizing the arguments against a common goal. Compared to Clinton, or Edwards for that matter, he's clearly less radical on many issues, as far as I understand. And to me (who's probably a leninist by American measures, I guess) Clinton's agenda is a bit more appealing. But I think Obama's ability to lead as well as his intelligence and his intellectual skills are superior to the other candidates, both democrats and republicans.
Piddzilla
07-01-08, 04:52 PM
I hear this quite a lot, but I listen to the Iraqi people moreso than anyone else, as they are the one's directly impacted. Every single one of my friends that live there have been greatful for the removal of Saddam. Why do we not see this on the news. It is all about how terrible the USA is yet so many want to live here, because of opportunity, which is exactly what many Iraqis have gained unless of course we bail on them. Iraq has been in a state of war almost every year since 1958. So the idea that they would be better off if left alone just does not fly with me. Certainly a different approach would have been better, but to do nothing would be worse.
By the way, I never said we should attack Iran, and unless they act directly to carry out any of their threats, then we have many other options. I just do not want to wait to use those options.
Sorry, hadn't seen this post before.
Well, if everybody in the muslim world are happy about America then I guess you don't have anything to worry about.
You seem to be thinking that since many people move to USA they automatically should be okay with America bombing their homeland or supporting oppressing dictators. I don't deny that USA is probably a fantastic country to live in for many people and I don't say that your country sucks. But your foreign policies in the 3rd World during the last 50 or 60 years are just terrible and, as I said, very much the reason why the 3rd world makes you feel nervous.
And since I live in Sweden, which is the country in Europe that has accepted the most Iraqi refugees (don't know about the world, but we've accepted a lot more than the US), of course I hear a lot what they have to say about things over there as well. In general I would say that almost all Iraqis are glad that Saddam is gone. But at the same time, a majority would like USA to go home as well.
And when I said that I think you should leave the 3rd World alone, I didn't mean that you shouldn't give a crap about them. But there are other ways than bombs or to arm the side that are most profitable to the American economy.
Piddzilla
07-01-08, 05:02 PM
Btw, I was so disappointed when I realized that I had totally misunderstood who was the republican candidate.
http://www.cometothinkofit.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/zeb_macahan-739655.png
It's McCain, not Macahan.
I totally understand why those quotes by Wright (taken out of context I suppose) are controversial. But at the same time, I can't see why people get so upset about them. Is it weird to experience oppression and be angry about it? Or to condemn instead of bless America for the war in Iraq?
No, I wouldn't say that's weird. But I think Wright has said some very broad things. As you read through the sorts of comments he's made, it would seem to paint the picture of a man who doesn't just have a few policy differences with his government, but regards it as inherently rotten. America is, and always will be, an imperfect union, but I do not think it is inherently or inevitably bad.
Only Wright knows what he really believes, of course. But his repeated outbursts make it reasonable to wonder whether or not he actually hates his country. And if he does, I think it's understandable that people are upset with the idea.
As for context; Wright himself has said that sort of thing, but he's been either unwilling or able to explain what kind of context would change them. I can appreciate that things can look worse when taken by themselves, and not as part of their hole, but in this case I haven't seen any context which tempers his words, and certainly not any which explains them.
Not a very wise or politically correct choice of words.... But it's not like Bush is being held responsible for every racist, homophobic, bigott, xenophobic or plain stupid remark every republican or their pastor has ever made.
And Obama isn't being held responsible for the things every Democrat or their pastors are saying, either. He's only being asked to account for his OWN pastor and mentor. If Bush's actual pastor had said bigotted things, mentored him, and he'd continued attending the church for 20 years, it'd be a huge story.
In Sweden there's this party, KD (Kristdemokraterna - The Christian Democrats), with roots in the Pentecostal Movement, whose members regularly claim the one wackier thing than the other. People know this and you know what? If they don't like it they vote for some other party.
Exactly. :) People are upset about Obama's association with Wright and his constant evasions on the matter, and are highlighting the issue as one of the reasons not to vote for him.
If you think Obama's too radical then vote for another old man!
I hear this sort of thing alot, and while it might just be a bit of a joke, I think it's still a bit of a cheap shot. Who cares if McCain is old? He's show boundless energy on the campaign trail. If he's in good health, I don't know that it should matter.
And that's another thing about Obama.... That he's supposed to be such a radical. He's not. I haven't read any of the man's books but I've read some reviews. Besides from being impressed with Obama's skills as a writer and thinker the reviews I've read have also expressed an impression of him as a moderate liberal with rather conservative thoughts on traditional values. He seems to favour consensus over conflict and to be looking for the common denominators of the left and right, and then effectively neutralizing the arguments against a common goal.
Obama talks a good game on, as you say, "traditional values." But it's largely a matter of tone. He may pay lip service to conservative thought his votes and stances on abortion, for example, are basically as liberal as they can possibly be.
This is not to say that a conciliatory tone isn't a good thing. I agree with you that he prefers "consensus over conflict." One of the really exciting things about this election is that both Obama and McCain have shown an aversion towards needless confrontation, and both have gone out of their way to compliment the other and express their mutual respect, even when prefacing a criticism. But tone isn't a wholesale substitute for policy, of course, and I don't think Obama's all that moderate on policy.
He's got a few things where he's taken more moderate stances, but not on the kinds of issues that tend to serve as litmus tests for either party, IE: trade, taxes, foreign policy, abortion, gun rights, judicial appointments, etc. I appreciate the instances in which he has found common ground, but he doesn't break from his party on the tough issues. Most politicians don't, of course, but Obama's up against McCain, who's famous for flaunting the Republican line when he disagrees. He's taken some stances that earned him tremendous scorn from Republican voters, even in the midst of the primaries.
It's really ironic to me, then, that we hear so much from Obama and his supporters about putting an end to old politics and bridging our differences, because in McCain he's running against a man who hasn't just talked about such things, but has put his own neck on the line for them time and time again. It certainly fits with his personal history: if he wouldn't give in to torture, he's certainly not going to be bullied by conservative activists.
Compared to Clinton, or Edwards for that matter, he's clearly less radical on many issues, as far as I understand. And to me (who's probably a leninist by American measures, I guess) Clinton's agenda is a bit more appealing. But I think Obama's ability to lead as well as his intelligence and his intellectual skills are superior to the other candidates, both democrats and republicans.
He's certainly less radical than Edwards on some issues, but Edwards is pretty far left. I can't think of any issues offhand where he's less liberal than Clinton.
Clinton was an advocate of free trade, at least, and really never gets enough credit from conservatives for that fact. Obama, unfortunately, has not only sounded hostile to trade, but has actually suggested that we renegotiate NAFTA. That's a pretty staggering thing to suggest, and is pretty worrisome coming from the frontrunner for the U.S. Presidency. It's stunning that the issue of free trade is still being debated vigorously here.
Piddzilla
07-01-08, 06:56 PM
No, I wouldn't say that's weird. But I think Wright has said some very broad things. As you read through the sorts of comments he's made, it would seem to paint the picture of a man who doesn't just have a few policy differences with his government, but regards it as inherently rotten. America is, and always will be, an imperfect union, but I do not think it is inherently or inevitably bad.
Only Wright knows what he really believes, of course. But his repeated outbursts make it reasonable to wonder whether or not he actually hates his country. And if he does, I think it's understandable that people are upset with the idea.
Yeah, and that's why I understand why people are upset. But I really can't take the things he say too seriously because of who he is. But I guess it has something to do with me and religiously charged politics... or vice versa...
And Obama isn't being held responsible for the things every Democrat or their pastors are saying, either. He's only being asked to account for his OWN pastor and mentor. If Bush's actual pastor had said bigotted things, mentored him, and he'd continued attending the church for 20 years, it'd be a huge story.
Yeah I meant to clarify my post by editing it when I lost my connection. My point that I wanted to make was that it's a non-story. If the more extreme statements by Wright were identical with Obama's politics then Obama would never have reached the position he's in now. And my point is also that there are politicians with nutty ideas who the president is dependent of a lot more than a pastor, and I think the focus should be on politics rather than personal life.
Exactly. :) People are upset about Obama's association with Wright and his constant evasions on the matter, and are highlighting the issue as one of the reasons not to vote for him.
Yes, and those to whom this actually matters wouldn't have voted for him anyway. So that's why I think it's no big deal.
I hear this sort of thing alot, and while it might just be a bit of a joke, I think it's still a bit of a cheap shot. Who cares if McCain is old? He's show boundless energy on the campaign trail. If he's in good health, I don't know that it should matter.
It doesn't matter, and it wasn't an attempt to make a joke about McCain. But McCain impersonate the old establishment in many ways, while Obama represents, well, change. That is nothing new, conservatism versus change, but this time I think that a) more people than usual would like some chane, and b) that Obama has the ability to wake the interest in people who usually are pretty indifferent to politics.
Obama talks a good game on, as you say, "traditional values." But it's largely a matter of tone. He may pay lip service to conservative thought his votes and stances on abortion, for example, are basically as liberal as they can possibly be.
This is not to say that a conciliatory tone isn't a good thing. I agree with you that he prefers "consensus over conflict." One of the really exciting things about this election is that both Obama and McCain have shown an aversion towards needless confrontation, and both have gone out of their way to compliment the other and express their mutual respect, even when prefacing a criticism. But tone isn't a wholesale substitute for policy, of course, and I don't think Obama's all that moderate on policy.
He's got a few things where he's taken more moderate stances, but not on the kinds of issues that tend to serve as litmus tests for either party, IE: trade, taxes, foreign policy, abortion, gun rights, judicial appointments, etc. I appreciate the instances in which he has found common ground, but he doesn't break from his party on the tough issues. Most politicians don't, of course, but Obama's up against McCain, who's famous for flaunting the Republican line when he disagrees. He's taken some stances that earned him tremendous scorn from Republican voters, even in the midst of the primaries.
It's really ironic to me, then, that we hear so much from Obama and his supporters about putting an end to old politics and bridging our differences, because in McCain he's running against a man who hasn't just talked about such things, but has put his own neck on the line for them time and time again. It certainly fits with his personal history: if he wouldn't give in to torture, he's certainly not going to be bullied by conservative activists.
But I think now when the race starts for real that McCain will come through as a true conservative.
He's certainly less radical than Edwards on some issues, but Edwards is pretty far left. I can't think of any issues offhand where he's less liberal than Clinton.
Clinton was an advocate of free trade, at least, and really never gets enough credit from conservatives for that fact. Obama, unfortunately, has not only sounded hostile to trade, but has actually suggested that we renegotiate NAFTA. That's a pretty staggering thing to suggest, and is pretty worrisome coming from the frontrunner for the U.S. Presidency. It's stunning that the issue of free trade is still being debated vigorously here.
I think that Clinton wanted to go further with a universal health insurance plan than Obama, who as first step only want children to be covered by it. And about free trade; to me being for free trade is a liberal standpoint while protectionism only gains those who allready control the market. Poor countries with cheap raw material are being outmanoeuvred by the large closed markets of the rich countries. So, in that sense, I would regard Clinton as the more liberal of the two.
I think Clinton seeks confrontation much more than Obama (and I admire her a lot, but others unfortunately dislike her just because of that). He's more the step-by-step kind of guy, or at least that's the impression I get. And that's why I meant that he's moderate.
But your foreign policies in the 3rd World during the last 50 or 60 years are just terrible and, as I said, very much the reason why the 3rd world makes you feel nervous.
I cannot really argue that a lot of our policies have failed over the years and you stating this at least leads me to believe that you do not think it is all Bush's fault as many do.
Postcards showing police dog-in-training Rebel, a German shepherd born in early December, are causing a furor among the region’s Muslims who believe dogs are "ritually unclean," the Daily Mail reports.
:shrug:
Piddzilla
07-02-08, 07:10 AM
I cannot really argue that a lot of our policies have failed over the years and you stating this at least leads me to believe that you do not think it is all Bush's fault as many do.
Of course I don't hold Bush personally responsible for what goes on all over the world. But absolutely believe that his foregin policy has a part in it.
Piddzilla
07-02-08, 08:33 AM
So, it's official. Nelson Mandela is not a terrorist, not even by American standards.
I don't know what Barack Obama believes, and I won't pretend to. But I know that he has kept some very bad company, and been extremely tolerant of actions that most people rightly regard as intolerable. I'm of the opinion that he did this not because he's a Black Panther, or a Muslim, or anything silly like that. I think he did it because he's had political aspirations for his entire adult life, and one eye on the Presidency since he joined the Senate. I think his primary goal has been to avoiding alienating anyone; even people who he should be standing up to.
That sums up a lot of my assumptions about the man - and at least serves as an explanation of why he is/has been involved with people of a 'black nationalism' bent. It seems fair to imagine that any AfroAmerican candidate that gets this far is gonna be driven, at least in part, by issues of racial identity, and is also gonna draw on all ends of that society as a support base.
It would be good to know what race-based visions for society he espoused (coz yes, the man does espouse ;)) in his book - IE the one's Toose touched on. Guess i might get round to researching it... (once i get over some local issues here - like my annoyance at the new London mayor running the shoddiest 'change' platform in recent memory...)
I agree, but he's running on a platform of change, and it is often suggested that he's a new type of politician who's going to heal old divisions, usher in a new era, etc. All of these things are a little disingenuous if he's willing to engage in all the same political maneuvering as everyone else.
It seems to me that everyone in primaries like these (with the incumbent on the way out) is running on a platform of change, if only by default. And they always spin it a thousand different ways to each constituency in turn. It seems like an inevitable political outcome of the democratic process - and i can't really blame Obama for playing that card hard, to stand out - he is, superficially at least, the 'most different' etc.
I honestly don't think we ever know where 'new-ish comers' stand until they get into power. Even voting record isn't always a totally reliable gauge of future-preference. (I like how this (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18721308/mccain_resurrected/print), otherwise fairly shambolic Rolling Stone article, gives McCain some 'long shrift' over his changes of mind etc :))
The people who tack Obama's image everywhere, as if he was a cure-all for AIDs and obstinance, do get my goat tho ;)
I agree, it's not inherently contradictory. What is contradictory is the apparent admiration he has for General Patraeus, despite the fact that he has directly contradicted him on fundamental matters relating to Iraq.
Yeah, i see McCain as winning this argument currently, and Ob shuffling to catch up. A lot depends on how sustainable ('cost' wise) the surge proves. Rocky economic times may bounce the ball back to young Ob 'Hussain'. (Only for McCain to capitalise on any current flip-flopping - and the game goes on ;))
---
Cheers for answering my queries :)
I coulda rattled on more about the Ob/race/relations stuff - but woulda been mainly speculating. And i reckon it's gonna be running issue anyway ;). Be glad to hear any more you've got to say on the issue tho :)
Report: Anheuser-Busch Agrees to InBev Sale
Up next: Hot dogs and apple pies and baseball.
Next: Yahoo
Holden Pike
07-14-08, 12:28 AM
Report: Anheuser-Busch Agrees to InBev Sale
Up next: Hot dogs and apple pies and baseball.
Next: Yahoo
I think it's funny that hardly anyone makes a peep when all the major publishing houses are bought up by international conglomerates, WAL-MART's supposedly "made in America" shelves are full of products that haven't touched American soil until they got off the truck at the local WAL-MARTs and you're supposed to be dismissed a loon if you bark about Halliburton moving to Dubai....but DON'T MESS WITH OUR CRAPPY WATERED-DOWN BEER! That's sacred somehow.
Well I do not have to order my breakfast jack from India yet, thats something.
FILMFREAK087
07-14-08, 07:21 PM
Okay, I've been avoiding the election like a plague. Graphs and charts and pointless polls are enough to drive a man to tears. I really can't say I like either choice. As a cynic, I don't believe any of Obama's: "I can fix everything" schtick, and McCain's: "I'm telling it how it is" Schpeal. If for anyone, I'm voting Nader, at least I know he won't win and screw me over.
I think it's funny that hardly anyone makes a peep when all the major publishing houses are bought up by international conglomerates,
Yeah, that is a hoot .....................aint it?
Piddzilla
07-15-08, 04:36 AM
Globalization sucks when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
Globalization sucks when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
You wanted it to bite your ass... you know you did...
Capitalism is seen as arrogant, but that is merely the rage of Caliban on seeing his reflection. The extraordinary thing about capitalism is its humility and refusal to judge. It will give us what we want; it will not force on us what it thinks we need. Often we are disgusted by what we discover that we want—but that reflects on us, not on the servant who brings us our fetish gear and saturated fats. It would bring us organic turnips just as happily. If we cease to desire a product, the producer changes, or ceases to exist. There is nothing more powerless than a corporation.
;)
Taken from a from this (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10255) paean to capitalism
The N-Word, The View, Jesse Jackson, etc....: thoughts?
My take on it is simple: do not use it ever for any reason with maybe one exception - artistic/historical uses, in movies, books etc... because one cannot change the past, other than that it is time to grow up and just not use it whatsoever. If in doubt whip it out, or in this case - if in doubt keep your mouth shut. Just me...wondered what you guys think?
John McClane
07-19-08, 01:41 AM
I despise racial slurs. I have a hard enough time watching a movie with them in it, so I definitely don't like hearing them in society. Trust me, I make damn sure people know that if they say one.
And when someone uses a racial slur for their own kind it ain't cool. Stupid would be a better word to describe it because, let's be honest, if you don't respect yourself and your race enough to not use a racial slur you're just freaking stupid.
Iraqi Troop deaths reach all time low. Oh wait that is not news, it is more interesting when they die.??????????
Everything else aside, this is good news.
Piddzilla
08-04-08, 09:19 AM
How did you learn about it if you didn't hear it on the news? I heard it the other day on the radio here in Sweden, and since almost all our international news report are based on the big international news bureaus (AP, Reuter and so on) I would be surprised if you guys didn't hear about it.
Piddzilla
08-04-08, 09:49 AM
Capitalism is seen as arrogant, but that is merely the rage of Caliban on seeing his reflection. The extraordinary thing about capitalism is its humility and refusal to judge. It will give us what we want; it will not force on us what it thinks we need. Often we are disgusted by what we discover that we want—but that reflects on us, not on the servant who brings us our fetish gear and saturated fats. It would bring us organic turnips just as happily. If we cease to desire a product, the producer changes, or ceases to exist. There is nothing more powerless than a corporation.
I kind of like that quote. People always put capitalism as the opposite to socialism and try to base their argument on that assumption. But capitalism is a force where ideology is totally absent as is compassion and long-term thinking. The kind of capitalism that globally is dominant today is some kind of hyper-version of Darwin's theory about the survival of the fittest, only where the fittest are always running the risk of implosion. When total hyper capitalism rules all the actors on the free market are dependent on that the market remains free. Paradoxically, at the same time each actor strives for complete dominance on the market. Which is called monopoly and not free at all.
I wouldn't call the corporation powerless, but rather mindless or speed blindness. In a world of unregulated capitalism each corporation will expand and eat until it bursts without anyone reflecting on what the consequences will be. All that matters is ackumulation of capital.
I didn't read the whole story by Gough (that's not you, is it?). Even if there were bits here and there that were interesting I don't really agree with the basic thought behind it. I don't agree that capitalism only is a reflection of the true human nature. Consumer society is a product of capitalism just as capitalism is a product of consumerism. But nevertheless, I don't think what people are ultimately looking for is higher highs and lower lows, I believe that what we are all looking for is a decent everyday life and some kind of harmony. And the same with the economy. I'm basically a fan of social democracy which is a mixture of free market capitalism and a responsible state that distributes the capital reasonably fair and equal. In other words, balance between capitalism (that finances the state's distribution of capital among the people) and the state's control of capitalism through legislation of laws that keeps corporation from swallowing whole markets.
Oh, and Obama for president!
;)
I kind of like that quote. People always put capitalism as the opposite to socialism and try to base their argument on that assumption. But capitalism is a force where ideology is totally absent as is compassion and long-term thinking....
...I don't really agree with the basic thought behind it. I don't agree that capitalism only is a reflection of the true human nature...
...I'm basically a fan of social democracy which is a mixture of free market capitalism and a responsible state that distributes the capital reasonably fair and equal. In other words, balance between capitalism (that finances the state's distribution of capital among the people) and the state's control of capitalism through legislation of laws that keeps corporation from swallowing whole markets.
Yeah - that quote was the main bit that intrigued me about the article (that and its 'gonzo economics' style ;))
I reckon we sing from a fairly similar 'centrist' hymn sheet, you and me. I do see capitalism as an 'ideology' tho (how else could they believe in intangible things like 'invisible hands'? ;) - there's plenty of signs that it's a 'belief system' - just like socialism etc). And i'm pretty suspicious of the practicality/effectiveness/desirability of many forms of 'distribution of wealth'.
That said - here's one that's been intriguing me recently - the proposed 'cap & share' (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926650.400-cap-and-share-carbon.html) approach to carbon trading that Ireland is looking to implement.
And if you want an example of capitalism-alone/small-government/GDP-meritocracy being short-termist and destructive, look no further than this sterling bit of research... IMF loans 'lead to TB deaths' (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19926663.100-imf-loans-lead-to-tb-deaths.html)
(I would put a smilie here, but that last one is some dark ****)
How did you learn about it if you didn't hear it on the news? I heard it the other day on the radio here in Sweden, and since almost all our international news report are based on the big international news bureaus (AP, Reuter and so on) I would be surprised if you guys didn't hear about it.
I was surfing top stories on different sites: CNN - did not see it, I did see the story about soldiers being charged for murder though. MSNBC - Nothing there. Local (Dem run newspaper site Pensacola News Journal) Not a peep. Fox: yeah there it was right along side the murder story. You are right about the international news though after you mentioned it I found it in a few places. So I stand corrected.:)
Piddzilla
08-04-08, 04:09 PM
I was surfing top stories on different sites: CNN - did not see it, I did see the story about soldiers being charged for murder though. MSNBC - Nothing there. Local (Dem run newspaper site Pensacola News Journal) Not a peep. Fox: yeah there it was right along side the murder story. You are right about the international news though after you mentioned it I found it in a few places. So I stand corrected.:)
Actually, I don't think Iraq has much value in either way. Not to mention the Afghanistan conflict which has been going on for longer than the thing in Iraq and I think people don't even know that there is still fighting going on there.
Piddzilla
08-04-08, 04:36 PM
Yeah - that quote was the main bit that intrigued me about the article (that and its 'gonzo economics' style ;))
I reckon we sing from a fairly similar 'centrist' hymn sheet, you and me. I do see capitalism as an 'ideology' tho (how else could they believe in intangible things like 'invisible hands'? ;) - there's plenty of signs that it's a 'belief system' - just like socialism etc). And i'm pretty suspicious of the practicality/effectiveness/desirability of many forms of 'distribution of wealth'.
That said - here's one that's been intriguing me recently - the proposed 'cap & share' (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926650.400-cap-and-share-carbon.html) approach to carbon trading that Ireland is looking to implement.
And if you want an example of capitalism-alone/small-government/GDP-meritocracy being short-termist and destructive, look no further than this sterling bit of research... IMF loans 'lead to TB deaths' (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19926663.100-imf-loans-lead-to-tb-deaths.html)
(I would put a smilie here, but that last one is some dark ****)
Interesting stuff there. I like the cap & share thing. I think that socialist thought very often is not flexible enough when it comes to taxes and how the capital up for distribution should be collected. Unfortunately, taxes sometimes are designed as some kind of populist way to punish entrepreneurs and small companies in a way meant to make the state appear as the good guys in the eyes of people. At the same time the state is totally dependent on the profits that these companies make. Can't we all just get along?
About capitalism being an ideology. To me capitalism is an economic system, a very raw system, totally free from politics. Therefore, it can hardly be an ideology of its own. Then there are politics and different ideologies that position themselves to capitalism in different ways. I think Noam Chomsky (who would qualify as an anarchist, I believe) has said that marxism is a description of capitalism, or something like that. There are of course political theorists that hail capitalism as the only thing we need to rely on. But if you consider the opposite to marxism, that kind of ideology will not necessarily be all in favour of unregulated capitalism. Conservatism, or if we move even further to the right, fascism or national socialism, and its followers are often very keen on controlling what companies that are allowed to act freely.
Can't we all just get along?
:D
Nah, the money-(power)-houses don't want to give up their cash ;) - Plus they're barely distinguishable from the houses of government in many ways ;) (Well, outside of Scandinavia of course :))
About capitalism being an ideology. To me capitalism is an economic system, a very raw system, totally free from politics. Therefore, it can hardly be an ideology of its own...
...There are of course political theorists that hail capitalism as the only thing we need to rely on. But if you consider the opposite to marxism, that kind of ideology will not necessarily be all in favour of unregulated capitalism. Conservatism, or if we move even further to the right, fascism or national socialism, and its followers are often very keen on controlling what companies that are allowed to act freely.
I think the very fact that many of its tenets are particularly 'idealised' (IE very difficult to realise in the real world) - and yet it is embraced by so many factions - gives it a kind of pseudo-religious sheen almost. It was initially conceived as a localised/small-scale approach after all - and generally devolves into a disguise for protectionism/monopoly in practice etc - yet you'll find many devotees who still insist it's a cure-all (the political theorists you mention).
Add to that that the far-right isn't that big on the international stage these days (lord knows what Russia counts as ;)) - and that the Big Left of China is more than dallying with 'centrist' economic ways, i'd say the gospel has spread. We've all moved into the 'centre ground' of the Free Market. (I guess i'm almost into the territory that article covered now - that the inscrutable mantras of the stock market are the 'New Latin' etc :D)
But still - i'd say, although primarily economic, it appeals as an ideology to some - a form of 'best practice' in the combined realms of the moral and the pragmatic, to their minds.
Ain't saying i go to that Church tho ;)
Here's two intriguing (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html) pieces (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/03/journalism/) on the recent anthrax kerfuffle.
Lengthy, but worth a read. The first one mainly retraces the media coverage of the 2001 anthrax attacks, and the links to Iraq touted heavily by some.
The second focuses more on the journalistic duties of protecting sources - but also not being taken for a ride by 'those lying bastards' (a BBC term for 'politicians' ;))
I particularly liked the reference to Olly North's flagrant attempt to abuse the 'sanctity of the secret source' code of conduct amongst journos. That and the suggestion that there has been some Plame/Niger style manipulation of the press by certain government circles, to try and erect a big neon sign pointing at Iraq during a sensitive (and hysterical) time in recent history.
Georgia started fight with Russia
Yeah and anthills started a fight with Mountains.
Lordy
The Spirit
08-19-08, 05:04 AM
Wish Reagan were still around. HE'D know what to do!
http://www.gifflix.com/media/2900/Reagan_Smash/
undercoverlover
08-19-08, 07:49 PM
sod Reagan, you'd need a Jesus and Superman combo to sort out this mess.
Sawman3
08-19-08, 07:56 PM
sod Reagan, you'd need a Jesus and Superman combo to sort out this mess.
Nah, Jesus is too controversial and Superman is too Superman. I say Buddha :p
Monkeypunch
08-19-08, 08:30 PM
sod Reagan, you'd need a Jesus and Superman combo to sort out this mess.
I'd say throw in Batman too, just for good measure.
undercoverlover
08-19-08, 08:37 PM
whoa whoa whoa
too many cooks guys
probably what got us into this mess in the first place
Sawman3
08-19-08, 08:39 PM
Buddha's a cook?
The Spirit
08-25-08, 06:12 AM
THIS is what we REALLY need!
http://imagechan.com/images/f583347715495a2404222eafe298c6ed.jpg
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
Clinton cancels appearance at U.N. rally against Ahmadinejad after learning organizers invited GOP veep pick Sarah Palin.
Pretty classy Hillary, We see what is more important to you. Your party should be angry at you for this.
The Spirit
09-17-08, 09:12 PM
Clinton cancels appearance at U.N. rally against Ahmadinejad after learning organizers invited GOP veep pick Sarah Palin.
Pretty classy Hillary, We see what is more important to you. Your party should be angry at you for this.
not a classy move on her part. seriously.
Wondering if the Dem's will hang themselves on private matters.
I actually believe it's who has the most lives in them because they all hang themselves on a daily basis; just depends on who you listen to about it. I'm truly getting sick of listening, although I wish the debates would start already.
http://www.cca.edu/gallery/gmedia/920.jpg
I actually believe it's who has the most lives in them because they all hang themselves on a daily basis; just depends on you listen to about it. I'm truly getting sick of listening, although I wish the debates would start already.
I do have to say that I am almost about sick of the stupid negative politics that has cost so much money. How many starving children could be fed with the monies donated to the DNC and the RNC? If the answer was 1, then well then someone should feel guilty, if the answer was 1 million , then well .......:sick:
honeykid
09-18-08, 10:23 PM
I'm truly getting sick of listening, although I wish the debates would start already.
I understand what where you're coming from, but they aren't doing it because they know that it doesn't matter, as there aren't enough votes in discussing the policies. Most people won't pay attention for long and even fewer will understand what's being said or what it means for them personally or the country at large. Some media outlets will point out certain things, but only to point their readers/listeners/viewers in the direction they want them to vote.
Everyone says that the public aren't stupid and that you can't pull the wool over their eyes, but they say that because a) they know it's not true and b) because they know that if you tell people what they want to hear, they're far more likely to believe you and, therefore, trust you.
The Spirit
09-18-08, 11:47 PM
Im curious as to how many of us mofos are republican or democrat. i tend to lean towards republican but im really independent. I get a LOT of flack for that, living in LA and all.
I am a registered Indie, but I voted for Clinton and I voted for Bush. They are more alike than many want to believe. Right now I am definitely leaning McCain, but still room out there to make me change.
The Spirit
09-19-08, 12:12 AM
wow really? thats awesome. i agree. its really cool to hear (or read in this case) that someone does want mccain cause i dont hear it alot. basically that hes a nutjob conservative and that palins even worse. i kinda like em. and i dont like obama's tax policy.
I understand what where you're coming from, but they aren't doing it because they know that it doesn't matter, as there aren't enough votes in discussing the policies. Most people won't pay attention for long and even fewer will understand what's being said or what it means for them personally or the country at large. Some media outlets will point out certain things, but only to point their readers/listeners/viewers in the direction they want them to vote.
Everyone says that the public aren't stupid and that you can't pull the wool over their eyes, but they say that because a) they know it's not true and b) because they know that if you tell people what they want to hear, they're far more likely to believe you and, therefore, trust you.
I like your post, but it seems to reinforce mine. (Again, depending on who you listen to; there are so many twists and turns that if you TRULY believe them all, it's almost like you have to roll the dice. The point is that you can research the truth. The truth trumps the dice; at least I hope so.
What is worse: A candidate that has few policies that you agree with and sticks by their beliefs or one that tells you what makes them popular and you agree with on just about everything and then does nothing they promised?
I really want to believe in much of what Obama is saying and the funny thing is I think he does too, he is just too naive to know that a president does not really call the shots.
honeykid
09-19-08, 12:57 AM
What is worse: A candidate that has few policies that you agree with and sticks by their beliefs or one that tells you what makes them popular and you agree with on just about everything and then does nothing they promised?
I really want to believe in much of what Obama is saying and the funny thing is I think he does too, he is just too naive to know that a president does not really call the shots.
My answer to the first part of your post is that the worst is the one that tells you what makes them popular and you agree with on just about everything and then does nothing they promised? The problem with that is that you can't know that until after it's happened.
As for Obama being too naive to know that the President doesn't call the shots. I'd say that was a naive comment and I'm sure (hope) that you don't mean it literally. Of course he knows what the President can and cannot do. He's an American and a Senator. He knows exactly what the job entails and what would/will be expected of him if he wins. What he can't know, because no one does, is how he'll deal with it. But that makes him no different to McCain or any other man before serving his first term as President.
As for Obama being too naive to know that the President doesn't call the shots. I'd say that was a naive comment and I'm sure (hope) that you don't mean it literally.
I certainly do mean it that way, because if Obama knows it (I am sure he does), he does not want the rest of us to know it. He can do no wrong, almost no one I know that is voting for him has anything at all bad to say about him. I have things I do not like about McCain /Palin, but I do not lie to myself like many koolaid 'Bama" drinkers do. HE CAN DO NO WRONG, and when he does - WELL shove it under the rug.
7th, I love you, but that sounds like something you'd accuse an UnHoly Obamaist of saying, but they haven't said it yet. (Well, maybe they have by now!) Yikes! This campaign is the ultimatest(!!) suckfest!
Matt Damon -
quotes
I think there is a really good chance Sara Palin could be president.
I do not know ANYTHING about her.
I don't think in 8 weeks I am going to know ANYTHING about her.
I know that she was a Mayor of a really, really small town.
HOLD UP, you said that you do not know anything about her and will not in two months, which is it Matt?
She was Govenor of Alaska for less than two years.
HOLD UP, that s more you know!
The hockey Mom thing.
Wait Matt, how do you know that? You said you know nothing?
Dinosaurs, wait Matt, how do you know about that?
Ban Books...oh COMEON MATT, how do you know this much about someone you know nothing about?
Starting an interview saying you know nothing about someone then saying how much you do know is kinda......a lie?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anxkrm9uEJk
honeykid
09-21-08, 12:22 AM
I think that the vast majority of celebs shouldn't talk about politics, but then I think that vast majority of celebs shouldn't talk about anything at all. But if someone's stupid/desperate enough to ask them their opinions, I'm sure they're going to do so. So I don't blame him (or any other celeb) for voicing their opinions, regardless of how stupid or inaccurate they are. That said, I think you know what he meant when he said "He didn't know anything about her." However, I like it when people are pedantic for comic effect or to make a point/humiliate someone/win an arguement, so bravo. :D
On a personal note. America, please don't vote for McCain. Not because he's a bad guy or I hate him or I'm a democrat or anything like that. Just do it because I really do think that there's a good chance of Palin taking over at some point in the next 4 years and that's not a good thing. It's not a good thing for America and it's not a good thing for the world at large and, before someone starts saying that it's an American election and is no one elses business, I'm afraid that once you become the dominant Empire it is your responsiblity to think about what your leaders (and therefore your vote) does to the world at large as well as your own country. I don't expect you (or anyone else) to put the world at large before your own country when you vote, but in this case, it'll be the same thing.
FILMFREAK087
09-21-08, 12:26 AM
His argument isn't very thought provoking, although I think the experience factor does undermine McCain's biggest argument against Obama.
Bush is at least trying to act like he's still President, but it's kinda funny that everything he's doing to "try to prop up the economy" is being attacked by McCain. The President has to do something while he's in office because before "he's" in office, we have no idea who "he" will be. I still stand by the idea that all these bailouts are just Monopoly money which will come home to roost in the near future. However, it did "prop up" our stock markets and "portfolios" (I'm not sure what my family has is worth being called a portfolio, but at least we have "something") for a few days. Now, when the "details" sink in, let's see what happens. After all, this is still only the beginning. :(
It will all work itself out, the Dem's try to blame the Rep's, and the Rep's try to blame the Dem's - in the end - America will still be America. What other country can one yell at the top of their lungs how much they love their religion or their sexual pref' or their political pref' w/o having one's hand/cock/cross cut off and burned?
True, and some of that stuff near the end of your post sounds "kinda bad".
honeykid
09-22-08, 02:18 AM
What other country can one yell at the top of their lungs how much they love their religion or their sexual pref' or their political pref' w/o having one's hand/cock/cross cut off and burned?
Turn east. Now, you see that great big continent all the way over there? That's where. If you keep looking, you'll find others too. But I don't want to spoil the suprise.
Piddzilla
09-22-08, 03:40 PM
I think that the vast majority of celebs shouldn't talk about politics
I often think that a lot of politicians shouldn't talk politics.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.