View Full Version : The heart vs. the intellect
There's so much cold-blooded, unfeeling cynicism on this forum that it makes me sad. I may have posted a lot of stuff on this forum that people may regard as silly or irrelevant. However, whatever I say here is from the heart. However, all the wannabe lawyers here have to totally distort my words and twist everything I say against me. If you notice, the vast majority, by far, of what I have posted in this board has been in the "Poetry" thread. That's because poetry is the expression of the heart. I tried to express myself from the heart--honestly, sincerely, about the way I feel about things. I didn't post here to engage in a lengthy, pointless debate over irrelevant, nitpicky details. So to the people here who feel the inclination to endlessly cross-examine me and dissect my every word, I say this--you are missing the point! You are missing the forest for the leaves! If you really want to understand where I am coming from--which, I think, is the point of all communication--to understand the other guy--try to look at the big picture instead of harping on over trivialities. If you have no interest in understanding where I am coming from, then we might as well not communicate at all. For what is the point of discourse when all it breeds is animosity and hatred? That defeats the purpose of communication at all. We might as well just fight like a pack of animals instead of communicate with each other like human beings, from the heart.
I got on this forum to communicate with people from the heart--to avoid conflict, not breed it. It just saddens me that all my efforts seem to have been in vain. Bush has succeeded, finally, in making his war come about, the hate-mongers on this board are hard at work deriding their opponents and tossing profanity around, and even the forum administrators seem to be biased in their direction, possibly owing to the current political climate in this fair nation.
Anyway, whatever the reason, I see little point in continuing to post in this forum for now. So, until things change for the better, I must bid you all adieu. Adios, amigos, as they say down in May-hee-koh! Django rides forth possibly never to return . . . (at least for some time!) Bye, bye!
1 - Nobody's twisted your words. What they have done is held you accountable for them, though. Something which doesn't seem to sit well with you.
2 - I don't believe for a second you came here to avoid conflict. If this were true, you wouldn't have jumped right into a handful of debate threads.
3 - The people who argue on here rarely hate each other by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, they quite admire each other, often. In my opinion, you're just lashing out against those who actually decided to call you out on some of the things you were saying. Your convienent timing illustrates this.
Sir Toose
03-21-03, 10:49 AM
What you call 'cold blooded cynicism' I call posting from my heart. If you can dish it then you'd better be able to take the backlash. I'm the nightmare of most people on this forum and most disagree with me on a huge number of things but I think it's pussy to make a statement then run from it when people don't agree with it and then claim abuse.
Piddzilla comes to mind... we banged out our ideals and we each know where we stand...polar opposite, but that doesn't stop me from liking/respecting him. To say that we are closed minded here is simply saying that you are not willing to put forth the effort to see where WE are coming from.... you expect that we will bend to accomodate you. It's proven that WE are willing to bend halfway...are you?
Your 'big picture' and my big picture are certainly different things. When you realize that TWO or more big pictures are ok then you'll be mature enough to handle criticism for your ideals/beliefs.
Caitlyn
03-21-03, 05:06 PM
This post just confirms what I already suspected…and I totally agree with Toose and Yoda…
:laugh: At this point, I have to laugh!
It seems as if I can't even say goodbye without provoking a debate! LOL!
I don't bear any hard feelings towards anyone. I'm the sort of guy who is incapable, frankly, of holding a grudge.
Fact is, I don't see my posting on this forum as serving any purpose anymore. I just don't have the time or inclination to go into lengthy cross-examinations over nitpicky details, frankly. I think it's time for me to move on with my life. I may check back on you soon in the future.
Till then, Adios!
The timing is duly noted. It's just a coincidence though, I'm sure. ;) Adios, indeed.
Sexy Celebrity
03-21-03, 08:40 PM
:rolleyes: @ this
Django, before you ride forth, possibly never to return.... buy a horse.
Is that supposed to be you riding on that horse, little boy? LOL! :laugh:
FYI... I don't need a horse. For I am, myself, "Stallone"! :D
MyRobotSuit
03-21-03, 09:36 PM
I will miss you Django, i shall light a candle in rememberance tonight and pray for your integrity when you are gone.
Goodbye, and stay cool.:cool:
Thanks, minion! You will also be missed! Django has spoken! :D
Monkeypunch
03-21-03, 10:27 PM
Quitter!:D Seriously, nobody agrees with me either, but unless I'm off my meds I don't take it seriously!:yup: Keep on keepin' on, whatever ya do, though.
like i said in another thread where you said you were leaving a couple of days ago...
seeeee yaaaaa :D oh bah-bye
So, like, while you're here...again...there's not, like, some change you could answer that one post of mine? No? Oh, okay. Just thought I'd ask.
Adios.
The Silver Bullet
03-21-03, 10:48 PM
Leave already.
MP, n7, your sentiments are appreciated.
I don't take it seriously either, but I just thought it was time for me to move on. I'll be coming back to visit in the future, though.
I think I've probably overstayed my welcome already, so unless I feel compelled to reply to more wellwishers, I'm probably gone at this point!
Adios!
The Silver Bullet
03-21-03, 11:32 PM
Why are you still here?
He's still lurking around........:sick:
theshape82
03-22-03, 01:06 AM
all i have to say django is that you go off saying that everybody is against the war in iraq
point of fact:we have many many nations on our side in this conflict
you say that we have no business in iraq and that they don't want us there
point of fact: the iraqi people are GLAD we're there
only a few people are against this war and i believe them to be cowards
but what ever
if you're leaving then.....
well i was going to say see you later
but i probably won't
have fun elsewhere tho
no hard feelings
you have as much right to your belief as i do
so...later
MyRobotSuit
03-22-03, 08:42 AM
I think eveyone's being a bit harsh on the poor lad, there's no need to be.
oh come on Minion, the guy set up this thread to say goodbye and he doesnt leave that sort of says he wants someone to either talk him out of leaving or some sort of attension otherwise he would just go, personally i dont want him to go but its his decision, he should either just do it or not do it, not make some thread and keep replying to it.
Sexy Celebrity
03-22-03, 04:18 PM
Sylvester Stallone sent me a message for you.
Hi, This is Dennis Rodman speaking on behalf of Django. While Django deeply appreciates this outpouring of public emotion upon his departure from this forum and extends his heartfelt good wishes to everyone, he regrets to inform you that he must, of necessity, depart from here as he has urgent business to which he must attend. From what I hear, it has something to do with some beautiful women with his name tatooed on their butt, or something like that. Anyway, he might be back in the future sometime. Till then, he has officially asked me to wish everyone goodbye on his behalf. Take it easy and keep partying! ;)
...and thus concludes his 8th post since declaring that he must leave, has urgent things to do, etc.
This is becoming somewhat entertaining.
Sexy Celebrity
03-22-03, 07:27 PM
Hi, this is Mark-Paul Gosselaar in drag. I played Zack on "Saved by the Bell" and now I'm on NYPD Blue, where I bared my butt on TV. I thought I'd stop in and see how weird everything's going. Oh, I see Dennis is here too. Hi, Dennis! :kiss:
If he posts one more time Yoda, JUST BAN DJANGO!!!!! That would help everything and everyone!!!! Get rid of 'em :furious: .
Sexy Celebrity
03-22-03, 09:13 PM
Banning Django is drastic. And besides, it might make Mark-Paul cry.
At least do something one step less drastic then. Please don't cry Mark :laugh:
Danger Diabolik
03-23-03, 05:05 AM
I might be a bit late on this thread, but I will say that, unlike many of us here, Django seems to, as I said before, want his right to Free Speech but not the responsibility for what he says.
And as I said before,
a right does not excuse a responsibility OR an accountability for an action. Django came out and said that Bush supporters are Nazis, Bush is a Nazi, ect. These are very serious accusations, and personally I think he has no idea what he's saying, as he isn't looking at the big picture, as well he is trying to rationalize HIS beliefs in Bush's Third Reich connection by equating the civilian casualties of the war with Hitler's genocide of the Jews.
Two VERY different stories.
Django isn't stupid by any stretch of the imagination, he's just ignorant and a bit blunt with people and it makes it worse when he thinks he shouldn't have to answer for what he says, and when he does say something, it may make sense to HIM, but it's disjointed and irrational to US because of his belief that he dosen't have to explain himself, and he leaves us hanging because we have no idea what he just said.
He's doing this to himself, in the age old practice
which we call "putting your foot in your mouth."
Anyway, good luck Django. Oh, and that last picture you sent us, was that really you posing as Dennis Rodman, or was that your latest money shot from Hustler magazine?:laugh:
Good luck, Django, and as you say, 'stay cool.' :D
sunfrog
03-23-03, 03:56 PM
Hey! I can post!
Poor Django. It's no use debating these people, no matter what you say you'll always be wrong.
Yoda's Top Ten Reasons Bush is Wonderful
1. He's republican
2. Someday he'll do something right, call it pre-wonderfulness
3. I know the names of all 43 presidents
4. It's not up to me to tell you why he's so wonderful, it's up to you to tell me why he's so bad so I can deny everything and reply to you by taking your sentences out of context
5. You just contradicted yourself, no I don't have bad reading comprehension
6. I saw someone on Bill O'Rielly's show say he's wonderful
7. I have a popular forum and I kick out everyone who doesn't agree with me just like Saddam. Bush hates Saddam so therefore he's wonderful
8. What? What do you mean that doesn't make sense? Just because I don't make sense to you or myself doesn't mean I don't make sense at all
9. The facts support it. Just look at all the facts in this top ten list
10. Thinking Bush sucks is just some crazy conspiracy theory
I guess you take the Homer Simpson approach: "Facts? Who needs facts? You can use facts to prove anything that's even REMOTELY true!"
Sunfrog's Top Five Rules for Debating on the Internet Juvenile attacks are perfect for diverting attention away from the fact that you can't really backup anything you're saying. Employ early and often!
Keep your claims either subjective ("Bush looks SO STUPID when he smirks like that!") or impossible to disprove ("Bush is evil!"). Never, ever let anything verifiable enter the conversation.
Keep the rest of your claims hyperbolic ("Bush is the worst President of all time!"). There's no need to support this with any actual data at all. If someone asks you to produce some evidence, give them a circular answer ("He's awful!").
If they continue to harp on the fact that you haven't produced any evidence, make fun of the concept of evidence itself! They'll never expect this because it makes no sense, and as such will catch them completely off-guard.
AND ABOVE ALL ELSE - never forget that "facts" only cloud the important things, like your own unsupported opinions. Never let pesky things like the truth get in the way of this! Guilty until proven innocent!Class dismissed.
Sexy Celebrity
03-23-03, 05:05 PM
*prays for a substitute tomorrow*
sunfrog
03-23-03, 08:17 PM
I had to make a top ten list for you because if I asked you to make one you wouldn't. Watch, I dare you to make a top ten why you love Bush list. And I want you to list proof that everyone here can verify. No listing what this person or that person said and no trying to turn it around and ask me for proof. Top ten reasons Bushlite deserves my love, go ahead, if you're all that master debater it should be easy. Tax rebate, hates terrorist, what else..
MyRobotSuit
03-23-03, 08:24 PM
ok i will, but i don't like bush. i don't know him. would you trust him with your dog for an afternoon while you go out courting?
Originally posted by sunfrog
I had to make a top ten list for you because if I asked you to make one you wouldn't. Watch, I dare you to make a top ten why you love Bush list. And I want you to list proof that everyone here can verify. No listing what this person or that person said and no trying to turn it around and ask me for proof. Top ten reasons Bushlite deserves my love, go ahead, if you're all that master debater it should be easy. Tax rebate, hates terrorist, what else..
I'm asking you, AGAIN, to provide a solid reason as to why Bush could reasonably be called the "worst President ever." I've asked you about this several times and you continue to ignore it. Sorry, but you're not the only one who gets to ask questions. I'm not here to jump through your hoops. I'll state my reasons if you agree to state (AND SUPPORT) yours. This works both ways, or not at all.
I also never said I loved him. Way to project your extremism onto others.
sunfrog
03-23-03, 11:46 PM
That's #4, did everybody see that? :laugh:
4. It's not up to me to tell you why he's so wonderful, it's up to you to tell me why he's so bad so I can deny everything and reply to you by taking your sentences out of context
There's no point talking to Yoda Django, I learned that a long time ago.
However, all the wannabe lawyers here have to totally distort my words and twist everything I say against me. <snip>
So to the people here who feel the inclination to endlessly cross-examine me and dissect my every word, I say this--you are missing the point!
That sounds familiar. As in:
I'm asking you, AGAIN, to provide a solid reason as to why Bush could reasonably be called the "worst President ever."
Let me try it. What do you mean "I also never said I loved him. " When did you stop loving him? Are you just in lust then or is it infatuation? You never said you loved him, but do you love him now? Do you feel sad because he doesn't love you? Do you think he loves you?
Why am I "not the only one who gets to ask questions." are we taking turns? Is there dice involved? Are you saying I don't have the right to free speech? Are you going to edit my posts? Did I say I was the ONLY one who could ask questions? Are others allowed to ask questions? Am I allowed to ask all the questions in this paragraph? hahaha
sunfrog
03-24-03, 12:11 AM
This is for everyone on this board including Toose.
Is this why you want war? (http://news.lycos.com/news/photo.asp?section=BreakingPhotos&photoId=293509)
ADMIN NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT ABOVE
...and if I were to link you to a picture of a mutiliated corpose tortured by Saddam, you wouldn't care one lick.The phrases "poor form" (you should've put the warning on there yourself) and "shock tactics" come to mind.
That's #4, did everybody see that?
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Sunfrog, Intellectual Dodgeball Champion of 2003. :rolleyes: Here's a tip: to debate, you have to be able to actually answer a question now and then.
Let me try it. What do you mean "I also never said I loved him. " When did you stop loving him? Are you just in lust then or is it infatuation? You never said you loved him, but do you love him now? Do you feel sad because he doesn't love you? Do you think he loves you?
:laugh: I called it: this is #1 on my list.
"Juvenile attacks are perfect for diverting attention away from the fact that you can't really backup anything you're saying. Employ early and often!"
Why am I "not the only one who gets to ask questions." are we taking turns? Is there dice involved? Are you saying I don't have the right to free speech? Are you going to edit my posts? Did I say I was the ONLY one who could ask questions? Are others allowed to ask questions? Am I allowed to ask all the questions in this paragraph? hahaha
I guess you didn't get the "jokes do not count as valid arguments" memo. And I'll bet you're behind on your TPS reports, too.
If you cannot demonstrate that you know what you're talking about, I'm not going to waste any more time here. The last time we got into actual facts and figures, you bailed. Feel free to reply when you can offer more than bad jokes and unsupported statements.
sunfrog
03-24-03, 10:45 AM
So what you're saying is, because Saddam kills his people we should kill his people too? What are you saying?
8. What? What do you mean that doesn't make sense? Just because I don't make sense to you or myself doesn't mean I don't make sense at all
You needed a shock so does everyone who wants war, I think you fogot war is about killing. Next time you cheer for war remember that picture.
So what you're saying is, because Saddam kills his people we should kill his people too? What are you saying?
I'm saying that you're clearly forgetting that NOT going to war has horrific consequences as well.
You needed a shock so does everyone who wants war, I think you fogot war is about killing. Next time you cheer for war remember that picture.
Forgetting that war is about killing is like forgetting that water makes you wet. Don't be ridiculous.
Apparently all you want to do is question everybody you disagree with, WITHOUT letting them question you. This is what's known as a double-standard. You're like a basketball player who shoots everytime he gets the ball, misses, and refuses to play defense. You bring nothing but bad jokes and unsupported opinions to the table. Tell me why I should waste my time on that.
sunfrog
03-24-03, 03:35 PM
Here's a poll for you. Why are we at war?
1. To liberate the Iraqi people
2. It's a pre-emptive strike
3. To retaliate for 9/11
4. Because of Cheny, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld
5. For oil profits
6. For daddy's love
7. Other
P.s. Last time I told you why Bush sucks you denied the facts. And anyway, I rolled snake eyes so I get to go again. ;)
Is Spud in Iraq?
Here's a poll for you. Why are we at war?
If you want my opinion: reasons 1 and 2. To liberate the Iraqi people and remove the threat Saddam poses. We've already been over reason 5, over which you basically stated that anything which disagrees with your conclusion MUST be wrong, even though you have absolutely no idea why.
P.s. Last time I told you why Bush sucks you denied the facts.
Uh, wrong. You told me to look at unemployment, and I pointed out that it's better than the 30-year average. You told me to look at the GDP. So I did. I showed you that the GDP was (and is) doing fine. That's when you disappeared. How convienent.
Sir Toose
03-24-03, 06:36 PM
Well, hello Sunny. I thought you were unpolitico these days. Anyways... I have a picture too:
http://www.sondralondon.com/warpages/horror/cath/12.jpg
Don't forget those 3000+ (and their families) in your considerations.
Now:
You needed a shock so does everyone who wants war, I think you fogot war is about killing. Next time you cheer for war remember that picture.
War is about the PREVENTION of killing in this case.
About your picture:
Responsibility is at hand here, is it not? Look at the trail of events that led to the attack. Who could have prevented those attacks? Why did coalition forces attack in the first place?
Isn't there a nuclear facility that supplies power to you as well as to southern California right in your vicinity? What would happen if a plane or two crashed into that?
Look, Sunny, you know who I am for the most part. I'm a taxpayer, husband, father of two who is trying to do right in an uncertain and difficult world. I do NOT WANT war. I do accept that there are those who do not value human life over their own principles/desires. Hussein is a case in point. He murders, tortures, and harbors those who do the same. There is compelling evidence that he is at least on the way to being able to produce nuclear weapons which is a threat to the rest of the free world. Why are you defending him?
It breaks my heart to see pictures like that, it sincerely does. It broke my heart to know that the 3000+ victims at the WTC had families that have to deal with them being gone because of things that happen at levels above them politically.
I can't see another way of dealing with this issue than the current course.
On your poll I vote for 1 & 2.
Caitlyn
03-24-03, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by sunfrog
This is for everyone on this board including Toose.
Is this why you want war? (http://news.lycos.com/news/photo.asp?section=BreakingPhotos&photoId=293509)
ADMIN NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT ABOVE
Saddam Hussein has always believed that dead Iraqi civilians are his most powerful weapon to manipulate the media and world opinion… and his Iraqi fanatics were using women and children as human shields in Basra which is a direct violation of Article 51 of the Geneva Convention…
"The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations."
– Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Article 51
So lets lay the blame for your picture where it really belongs…and not to make light of the picture, but I saw worse pictures of the Kuwaiti citizens when Iraq invaded their country and I saw worse in real on 9/11.…
No one wants war but I believe it was Chief Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes who said, “The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Btw… I find it rather ironic that Saddam’s soldiers are equipped with gas masks designed to protect them from mustard gas, sarin, and VX… who on earth would dream of using something like that… not the US or Allied forces… and Saddam said he got rid of all of that…
Caitlyn makes an excellent point. Saddam knows that by hiding behind civilians he'll cause photos like this to surface and influence civilians in other countries to cry foul. What do you want us to do, let tyrants blackmail the entire world into standing idle by hiding behind the innocent?
Originally posted by Caitlyn
No one wants war but I believe it was Chief Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes who said, “The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
'Twas Edmund Burke. Holmes said something just as fitting, though:
"Between two groups of people who want to make inconsistent kinds of worlds, I see no remedy but force."
Caitlyn
03-24-03, 08:50 PM
Thanks Yoda - Master of Quotes... :)
My other site (http://www.quotedb.com). :)
theshape82
03-24-03, 09:17 PM
let's not forget that this is a war....people are going to get hurt
even civilians if the war is on their home front
if the war were here....like i suspect it would be after a while.....then american people would have died
Caitlyn
03-24-03, 09:17 PM
Ah... so I wasn't too far off the mark at all... ;) … Thanks Yoda, that’s a very nice site and I know where I’ll be for a while… :yup:
theshape82
03-24-03, 09:26 PM
"Decadence is a difficult word to use since it has become little more than a term of abuse applied by critics to anything they do not yet understand or which seems to differ from their moral concepts."
-- Ernest Hemingway
just thought i'd put this ;) :yup:
theshape82
03-24-03, 09:49 PM
THIS IS WHAT YOUR INNOCENT F*#@ING IRAQIS DID!!!! (http://movies.ogrish.com/killedsoldiers.asf)
The Silver Bullet
03-24-03, 10:05 PM
I'm glad you enlisted. Hatred and vengeance are great reasons to go to war.
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
I'm glad you enlisted. Hatred and vengeance are great reasons to go to war.
As awful as it sounds, I imagine you kinda have to be p*ssed off on some level if you're to be an effective soldier
The Silver Bullet
03-24-03, 10:33 PM
See I would think that compassion would play a large role. And inner peace. If you kill someone as a result of rage I think you'd feel pretty lousy afterwards [especially if you killed someone completley unreasonably]. I'd think you need the abilty to kill and maim knowing truthfully in your heart that it is the right thing to do. And not because, "Argh! Die you Iraqi f_ckers, die!"
Not that I've ever killed, so not that I know.
I agree. Which is why I said "on some level." Check the sig if you want to know how I feel about these matters. There's little doubt that anger is a tool in regards to war, though. I was simply trying to convey that, while killing out of rage isn't likely to be a good idea, an anger isn't exactly wildly inappropriate on the battlefield.
theshape82
03-24-03, 10:37 PM
no...it's just pissing me off that people are all like....aww...look at those poor iraqis
well guess what
watch the f***ing video
those guys did nothing more then take a wrong turn
Originally posted by theshape82
no...it's just pissing me off that people are all like....aww...look at those poor iraqis
well guess what
watch the f***ing video
those guys did nothing more then take a wrong turn
It's true that there is suffering on both sides. As such, sympathy for both is in order.
The Silver Bullet
03-24-03, 10:41 PM
Adrien Brody knew the score. Whether you believe in God or Allah...
theshape82
03-24-03, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Yoda
It's true that there is suffering on both sides. As such, sympathy for both is in order.
i agree
but it just seems that when i say it then it's generally ignored
and the whining and whimpering continues
....
MyRobotSuit
03-25-03, 12:13 AM
maybe it comes down to image. Yoda is a very wise jedi, you are a serial killer. Who would you feel at ease with? I'm being serious.
theshape82
03-25-03, 12:57 AM
lol
alright...so my opinion isn't as researched as yoda's or a bunch of other peoples
i can accept that
and i prefer to be known as a practically unstoppable maniacle serial killer thank you very much:laugh:
sunfrog
03-25-03, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by Yoda
It's true that there is suffering on both sides. As such, sympathy for both is in order.
That's what the picture was for, for once me and Yoda agree. People are getting killed all over the place and we have pro-war protesters cheering on the war. It makes me sick and sad. It doesn't matter who's fault it was, that little girl getting her feet blown off and that pile of dead people behind her is a horrible, horrible thing.
Dear Toose,
Who blew up the Twin Towers? Saddam or Osama? P'Lite has a statistic about how many Americans believe Saddam did it.
To Shape82,
I'm not defending Saddam, he's killed 200k people. He needs to go. But..
This war is not about Liberating Iraq, it's about something else that no one ever figured out. While we were all trying to figure it out the war started, and because no one wants to talk bad about the soldiers after what happened after Vietnam we say nice things.
I don't think it's 1 or 2. I think it's 4, 5, 7, and a smidgen of 6.
4. Because of Cheny, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld
5. For oil profits
6. For daddy's love
7. Other
I used to say oil is the reason, Saddam is the excuse, but now I don't think oil is the prime objective. I think it will play a major role but I think the reason we're at war is 4 & 7, Saddam is still the excuse. I think something more sinister than oil is afoot. Seriously. And I think Bush is a puppet. I haven't figured it out yet.
To Yoda,
Speaking of Bush sucking, didn't I predict this? Didn't I say Bush sucks in every way but after we win this war everyone will forget how much he sucked before the war and re-elect him? Doesn't matter that after the war he'll go back to sucking. I think I did, and you said it's not certain we'll win this war and I said the Iraqis don't even have trees to hide behind or something? Yeah, who's your daddy Yoda? Sorry, I had to go back to fighting with you, it felt too weird.
The Silver Bullet
03-25-03, 05:37 AM
Bush will win the election, but not because he won the war. My guess is that they will mysteriously find and capture Osama one week beforehand, in some bizarre twist of fate...
Sir Toose
03-25-03, 01:00 PM
Hey Sunny... religious fundamentalist arabs blew up the twin towers. Said fundamentalists were housed in Baghdad. Also, Saddam pays terrorists (walking bombs) (their families) to walk into public places and blow themselves up.
Plite can quote me statistics all day long but the two are related by a common cause...hatred of America/Americans... and using terrorism as a tool/lever of revenge.
The Silver Bullet
03-25-03, 06:29 PM
There are some birds in my walnut tree that are watching me and plotting.
theshape82
03-25-03, 06:31 PM
non-related i know....but here's something for you guys (http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/3/11/144347)
my mother of god, what is wrong with you people? didnt you NOT want anymore war threads and yet you've somehow turned a goodbye thread into a conspiracy, war, terrorist, Bush debate. My god when will this madness end!
theshape82
03-26-03, 12:55 AM
but he's gone so who really cares right?
i'd expect the same thing from my goodbye thread when i leave here soon
a person can talk about whatever the hell they want
Sexy Celebrity
03-26-03, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Bush will win the election, but not because he won the war. My guess is that they will mysteriously find and capture Osama one week beforehand, in some bizarre twist of fate...
:eek:
I think you might be right!
theshape82
03-26-03, 01:09 AM
:rolleyes:
theshape82
03-26-03, 01:13 AM
anyways...django isn't going to leave...he's still here...he's just not posting...take a look at his profile and tell me when the last time he logged on was
he's always getting on and reading this ****
sucking it all up
all he wanted was a little attention
Yeah, I know. He says a bunch of things, I ask him to back them up, he makes some ridiculous equation to lawyerly nitpicking, and says he can't spend time here for awhile. He then proceeds to post eight more times and visit several times a day. :laugh:
Pretty obvious that he's just dodging here and doesn't like being held accountable for his statements.
The Silver Bullet
03-26-03, 03:16 AM
He is a weakling girl boy and must be raped promptly.
:rotfl: daing boy, that was harsh (but yes i did laugh)
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
He is a weakling girl boy and must be raped promptly.
One day you have to tell me where you come up with this stuff
Sir Toose
03-26-03, 09:55 PM
I think you have to be born with it.
end of story.
sunfrog
03-31-03, 11:32 PM
Here's my thread!
Plite can quote me statistics all day long but the two are related by a common cause...hatred of America/Americans... and using terrorism as a tool/lever of revenge.
Then let's bomb France. France hates us, have you seen the protests? Saddam didn't do it Toose. I love your avatar btw.
You all forget about the oil, his dad and Texas.
Then there's the chemical weapons and nukes Saddam'll have in 5 years
Then the part where we didn't wait for the UN's decision
The part where we sent troops before any other options were considered
The part where Bush announced plans to attack on Sept 12
And the part where Saddam didn't blow up the Twin Towers
The part where Congress voted to give Bush the power to go to war
The part where this war is illegal
All that adds up to bull**** but after the tv or whoever started calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom everyone forgot. Funny they didn't make that a big selling point before the war.
Did I vote, yes I did, I didn't vote for Bush tho because I wasn't stupid enough. Do I value American ideals? Yeah, but America isn't the happy apple pie y'all think it is. Bushlite does NOT value American ideals because he doesn't know what they are. If he does know then he couldn't care less. He IS unamerican flat out. He is destroying everything America is supposed to stand for.
Did I spit on Vets? No, I was a baby, maybe I burped. Would I deny the Iraqi's my freedoms? Like my freedom to speak out againts the war without ******** telling me to love it or leave it? Like the freedoms the Patriot Act will soon take away? Like the freedoms Arab-Americans have? Or the freedoms everyone currently incarcerated without trials or charges have? No I wouldn't.
1) This war is not about "Iraqi Freedom" Iraqi Freedom is the wool over your eyes
2) Your happy little president is breaking more laws than I can count, soon you won't have freedoms
theshape82
04-01-03, 01:28 AM
you keep saying "your president"....if you are an american then he's your president too
you keep saying that he's breaking all these laws....name some....we need facts not accusations(sp?)
regardless what you may or may not beleive...it's not about the oil...and even if it were it's not like this war would do bush any good now would it considering that sadam and his chronies are burning all the oil
how is this war illegal if our congress voted to allow our nation to proceed?
the UN made their decision....we gave them ample oportunity....in fact bush downright told them that they could either vote for it or kiss our ass 'cause we're going to do it anyways(which btw we have the right to do
bush announced plans to attact the TERRORISTS on sept 12...not iraq...get your facts straight here
we're in this war now because of the chemical weapons and nukes that sadam already has....and has used to kill 200k+ people...have you forgotten that issue?
i guess so
you spend so much time degrading your own nation and your own president that you don't take time to consider what's really going on
you must be listening to the clinton news network(CNN for short)
damn liberals:yup:
sunfrog
04-01-03, 04:19 PM
Here's some stuff from the link I provided in another thread.
While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of
the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if
necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively
against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our
people and our country . . .
-The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
Grounds for Impeachment
Article II Sec. 4 of the Constitution states that:
"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Boyle says that waging a war of aggression is a crime under the
Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles. "It's very clear," he adds,
"if you read all the press reports, they are going to devastate Baghdad,
a metropolitan area of 5 million people. The Nuremberg Charter clearly
says the wanton devastation of a city is a Nuremberg war crime."
The United States is a party to the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and
Principles, and thus is constitutionally bound to obey them. "The
Constitution, in Article 6, says that international treaties are the
supreme law of the land here in the United States of America. So all we
would be doing here, in this impeachment campaign," Boyle says, "is
impeaching them for violating international treaties, as incorporated
into the United States Constitution, as well as the Constitution
itself."
Bush Cabal Repudiates Nuremberg Principles
We don't have to wait for the devastation of Baghdad to impeach the Bush
cabal because they have already repudiated the Nuremberg Charter via the
so-called Bush Doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive attack.
"This doctrine of pre-emptive warfare or pre-emptive attack was rejected
soundly in the Nuremberg Judgment, " Boyle says. "The Nuremberg Judgment
. . . rejected this Nazi doctrine of international law of alleged
self-defense."
The Bush Doctrine, embodied in the National Security Strategy document,
published on the White House web site, is appalling, Boyle says.
"It reads like a Nazi planning document prior to the Second World War."
His articles charged Bush with:
1) Violating the Equal Protection Clause by having minorities and poor
whites, who were the majority of the soldiers in the Middle East, "fight
a war for oil to preserve the lifestyles of the wealthy."
2) Violating "the Constitution, Federal law, and the UN Charter by
bribing, intimidating, and threatening others, including the members of
the UN Security Council, to support belligerent acts against Iraq."
3) Violating the Nuremberg principles by conspiring to engage in a
massive war against Iraq that would cause tens of thousands of civilian
deaths.
4) Committing "the United States to acts of war without congressional
consent and contrary to the UN Charter and international law." (This
refers to the lack of a formal declaration of war, as required by the
Constitution).
5) Committing crimes against the peace by leading the United States into
aggressive war against Iraq, in violation of Article 24 of the UN
Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, other international instruments and
treaties, and the Constitution of the United States.
Are the People Ready for Another Impeachment?
Impeachment has the advantage of bypassing the U.S. Supreme Court, which installed Bush in the Oval Office. The same "Justices" would
have the final word on legal challenges to constitutional abominations,
such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act, both of which
the White House rammed through a Congress frightened by the September
11th attacks and the as yet unsolved anthrax attacks on Capitol Hill.
But no matter how blatant the violations of constitutional, statutory
and international law are, impeachment is still a political process.
Republicans control the Congress and many Democrats, fearful of being
labeled "soft on terrorism" might be unwilling to challenge the Bush
cabal. It would take tremendous public pressure to get a reluctant
Congress to impeach.
1)Is kind of stupid but what do you think? Did you notice Django isn't the only one calling Bush nazi-like? Prof. Boyle wants to impeach George W. Bush, Dick
Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft for their plans to invade Iraq and create a police state in America.
Sir Toose
04-01-03, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by sunfrog
Then let's bomb France. France hates us, have you seen the protests? Saddam didn't do it Toose. I love your avatar btw.
Saddam has done plenty, Sunny. To the tune of murdering 200,000+ of his own people for starters. Why did you support attacking Milosevic under Clinton who was a boy scout compared to this dude. France is kiss@ssing already, looking for the post war contracts to rebuild Iraq. They are transparent. Your avatar is pretty damn funny too.
You all forget about the oil, his dad and Texas.
Forget what? Seriously... he was in the oil business, so what? It's one of the biggest industries in the world... lots of people are involved in it.
Then there's the chemical weapons and nukes Saddam'll have in 5 years
Yes, exactly. Had Clinton have acted on his threats from Al Queda he would look a little better than he does now.
Then the part where we didn't wait for the UN's decision
The United States of America is a sovereign nation and needs permission from no one. However the US is the staunchest supporter (fiscally and idealogically) of the UN.
The part where we sent troops before any other options were considered
It was considered for 12 years of cease fire.
The part where Bush announced plans to attack on Sept 12
And the part where Saddam didn't blow up the Twin Towers
The part where Congress voted to give Bush the power to go to war
You must have strong evidence that Saddam isn't guilty of 9/11... let's hear it. Look into Uday Hussein before you answer...there will be a test.
The part where this war is illegal
ILLEGAL? By which or what book of law?
All that adds up to bull**** but after the tv or whoever started calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom everyone forgot. Funny they didn't make that a big selling point before the war.
It was assumed that most people would connect their brain and figure it out. Come on...what possible gain is there for the US in killing civilians? The logic pool behind that needs some chlorine
Did I vote, yes I did, I didn't vote for Bush tho because I wasn't stupid enough.
I was. I can imagine bumbling and stumbling Al Gore in charge right now. try to picture that, please.
Do I value American ideals? Yeah, but America isn't the happy apple pie y'all think it is. Bushlite does NOT value American ideals because he doesn't know what they are. If he does know then he couldn't care less. He IS unamerican flat out. He is destroying everything America is supposed to stand for.
Living in America is a struggle. No one here is naive enough to think it's all apple pie. The left is more prone to promote that 'feel good' ideal than is the right. Bush is a good man with strong American ideals and I thank God for him every day. Fighting opression and defending our shores and lessening the control of government in our lives are the heart of what America is founded on. What the left preaches is socialism which is decidedly UN-American.
Did I spit on Vets? No, I was a baby, maybe I burped. Would I deny the Iraqi's my freedoms? Like my freedom to speak out againts the war without ******** telling me to love it or leave it? Like the freedoms the Patriot Act will soon take away? Like the freedoms Arab-Americans have? Or the freedoms everyone currently incarcerated without trials or charges have? No I wouldn't.
Is there a point here in this tirade... ? I missed it whatever it was. Are you actually crying for the filth locked up in Guantanimo? Please tell me you're not. I'd ask you to redirect the sorrow to the families of the 3000 killed in an act of war against the country that has clothed and fed you.
1) This war is not about "Iraqi Freedom" Iraqi Freedom is the wool over your eyes
Iraqui Freedom is a major part in it. Squashing the bugs that will bite us in the future is another part of it.
2) Your happy little president is breaking more laws than I can count, soon you won't have freedoms
Please list them here... okay... list one or two, that'll do
You keep bringing up oil. You do realize that oil is important to America right? Yet you and your ilk vote down domestic drilling. This places the US in a position to protect it's interests abroad. Your beliefs in this arena are a large part of the problem.
Idealogy is the wool over your eyes.
Piddzilla
04-01-03, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Sir Toose
Saddam has done plenty, Sunny. To the tune of murdering 200,000+ of his own people for starters. Why did you support attacking Milosevic under Clinton who was a boy scout compared to this dude. France is kiss@ssing already, looking for the post war contracts to rebuild Iraq. They are transparent. Your avatar is pretty damn funny too.
Those 200,000+ has nothing to do with the real reasons to the US invasion. US has known about those people all the time and never cared. It's just an argument to win the public opinion over to the pro-war side. I would like to ask BOTH the anti-war and the pro-war people where you were when genocide was going on in Rwanda. Millions of people were being slaughtered in just months and no one protested against it and no army engaged. Actually, the Kosovo thing was way more urgent than what goes on in Iraq. Genocide in the making as we spoke. And during the last gulf war US just left when Saddam started to kill off the "trators" and fleeing kurds and shia muslims. That's why the resistance in Iraq is harder than anyone could have possibly forseen - the only thing some iraqis hate more than Saddam is americans.
But I would also like to ask all anti-war people why they are never protesting outside the embassies of countries like China or North Korea or Nigeria or other murderous regimes. It's always USA. I don't like the war and I certainly think the reasons for it are dubious and you all know what I think of Bush - but anti-americanism is so immature, even if some of the people on this site invites anti-americanism when you read their posts.
Yes, exactly. Had Clinton have acted on his threats from Al Queda he would look a little better than he does now.
Are you saying that Clinton knew and did nothing? Really, I didn't know - I'm not being sarcastic. I've heard that FBI had indications that something was going on but didn't take it too seriously - but never that the president of USA ignored it.
The United States of America is a sovereign nation and needs permission from no one. However the US is the staunchest supporter (fiscally and idealogically) of the UN.
Then don't ask for the support of the world either and don't mock countries like France. And I think USA started to pay off their debts to UN like some time in the 90's, debts because of not paying "the member fee" for decades. And are you aware of that there are a lot of things that USA is like the only western country that doesn't participate in. There's this "agreement" or "convention", or what the hell you call it, about human rights that Somalia and USA are the only members that haven't signed. I mean... Somalia!
You must have strong evidence that Saddam isn't guilty of 9/11... let's hear it. Look into Uday Hussein before you answer...there will be a test.
I haven't heard any evidence what so ever of that he was in fact involved. And since when did this war stop to be about disarment and start to be about payback time for 9-11? Just another argument to win the public opinion.
The war is not illegal, or at least not anymore illegal than any other war, but it lacks legitemacy according to the "laws" of UN.
Living in America is a struggle. No one here is naive enough to think it's all apple pie. The left is more prone to promote that 'feel good' ideal than is the right. Bush is a good man with strong American ideals and I thank God for him every day. Fighting opression and defending our shores and lessening the control of government in our lives are the heart of what America is founded on. What the left preaches is socialism which is decidedly UN-American.
The established american political left isn't in the same solar system as socialism. Gore lost the election when Bush proclaimed his politics as "compassionate conservatism". Democrats: "What the ****?? That's what we do!!"
Are the american shores being defended in Bagdad? This is not the way to a safer world.
Is there a point here in this tirade... ? I missed it whatever it was. Are you actually crying for the filth locked up in Guantanimo? Please tell me you're not. I'd ask you to redirect the sorrow to the families of the 3000 killed in an act of war against the country that has clothed and fed you.
There's a swedish citizen on Guantanamo and USA won't release him because "he won't tell us what he are going to do in the future". That is the only reason to why they are holding him - they don't have anything on him at all.
Please list them here... okay... list one or two, that'll do
By keeping that swedish citizen USA are breaking the Geneva Convetion, the same convention that USA are accusing Iraq of breaking when they show US p.o.w.'s on tv. USA are defending the keeping of the prisoners on Guantanamo by saying that it's a part of the war against terrorism, a war not "covered" by the Geneva Convention. But at the same time they are justifying the war on Iraq as a part of the war against terrorism - but all of a sudden the Geneva Convention is in use again.
Double standards and hypocrisy.
By the way. 14 or 15 of the 19 terrorists in the planes on 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia, the american allied. Why doesn't USA attack them? It's a dictatorship too. But US-friendly.
sunfrog
04-01-03, 07:28 PM
Interesting article (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew80.php)
I had a lot of stuff to post then the power went off.
Here's an article about the12 year cease fire. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3970231,00.html)
1951 — Iranian people democratically elect Dr. Mohammed
Mossadegh as Iranian premier.
1953 — U.S. government, operating through the CIA, ousts Mossadegh in favor of shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, a cruel and tyrannical dictator who, with U.S. government support, brutalizes his own people for the next 25 years.
1979 — Iranian people revolt and oust the shah of Iran from power and take U.S. officials hostage in anger and retaliation against the United States. U.S. government is outraged over the ouster of the shah and the hostage-taking.
1981 — Iranian people release hostages to the United States.
1980s — U.S. government enters into partnership with Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq, to retaliate against Iran. U.S. government furnishes chemical and biological weapons to Saddam. See:
Iraq Got Germs for Weapons Program from U.S. in '80s (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/4185241.htm target=new) by Matt Kelley
Late 1980s — With U.S. government’s support and assistance, Saddam uses U.S.-government-supplied chemical weapons against Iranian troops. See:
Rumsfeld Key Player in Iraq Policy Shift (http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp target=new) by Robert Windrem
1986 — U.S. government enters into partnership with
Osama bin Laden and other Islamic radicals to resist Soviet intervention in
Afghanistan. U.S. government furnishes partners with weaponry, including U.S.-made
Stinger missiles.
1991 — Saddam contends that neighbor Kuwait is stealing Iraqi
oil through slant drilling and is also violating contractual agreements in OPEC.
Saddam signals partner U.S. government of intention to invade Kuwait to resolve
dispute. U.S. government, through U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, expresses no
objections, stating, “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such
as your dispute with Kuwait ... . Kuwait is not associated with America.”
1991 — Saddam invades Kuwait to resolve slant-drilling and OPEC dispute. President George H.W. Bush turns on partner Saddam and declares him to be a new “Hitler,” effectively dissolving the long partnership between U.S. government and Saddam. Bush declares intention to attack Iraq with UN assistance to repel Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
1991 — Persian Gulf War. UN forces, led by U.S. government, defeat Iraq and oust Iraq from Kuwait. UN and President George H.W. Bush leave Saddam in power but require him to dismantle his nuclear facilities and chemical and biological weapons.
1991 — U.S. government attempts to oust Saddam from power through UN-enforced military-economic blockade, also known as “sanctions,” against the Iraqi people, which continues to the present. According to UN officials, sanctions contribute to the deaths of multitudes of Iraqi children, with estimates ranging from hundreds of thousands to a million. See:
Iraq: Paying the Price (http://pilger.carlton.com/iraq/impact target=new) by John Pilger
Early 1990s — U.S. government establishes illegal no-fly zones over Iraq, resulting in a continuous U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq to the present. Illegal bombing campaign kills hundreds of Iraqi people.
sunfrog
04-01-03, 07:54 PM
Almost forgot, Uday Hussein? (http://www.intellnet.org/news/?type=category&value=Uday%20Hussein)
What did he do?
Piddzilla
04-02-03, 04:51 AM
I would also like to add that during the same time that USA was heavily supporting Iraq in the war against Iran - they secretly sold weapons to Iran too. The money were used to support the reactionary and anti-democratic Contras in Nicaragua.
This was the start for Iraq's distrust of americans which lies deeper than being just withing the Saddam regime. A million people died in the Iran-Iraq war and when you find out that who you thought was on your side was really just interested in both sides killing each other off, you're not too happy. And that's one of the reasons why USA will have a lot of problems convincing the iraqi people that they are liberators, not conquerors, since they are the people who supplied the weapons that killed their families.
It's easy sitting comfortable in your armchair in front of the tv thinking "yeah, this will be great! US out there spreading freedom over the world!". When you've been ****ed over by your own leader AND the so called liberators for 25 years to the sound of bombs and to the images of killed women and children, you're not easily going to trust any army. It's like the north korean army or the talibans would show up in Kuwait City with the Alliance saying: "Hi guys! We're on your side now!". Would the americans trust them?
Sir Toose
04-02-03, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Piddzilla
Those 200,000+ has nothing to do with the real reasons to the US invasion. US has known about those people all the time and never cared. It's just an argument to win the public opinion over to the pro-war side. I would like to ask BOTH the anti-war and the pro-war people where you were when genocide was going on in Rwanda. Millions of people were being slaughtered in just months and no one protested against it and no army engaged. Actually, the Kosovo thing was way more urgent than what goes on in Iraq. Genocide in the making as we spoke. And during the last gulf war US just left when Saddam started to kill off the "trators" and fleeing kurds and shia muslims. That's why the resistance in Iraq is harder than anyone could have possibly forseen - the only thing some iraqis hate more than Saddam is americans.
Nobody said anything because we had Captain Blojob in the white house demilitarizing the US. Now that we have a real president the mistakes of the past 8 years will be cleaned up. Saddam was never excused from war with the US. We had a 12 year cease fire in which his promises were not kept... no talking about being gung-ho...it took us 12 years to enforce.
But I would also like to ask all anti-war people why they are never protesting outside the embassies of countries like China or North Korea or Nigeria or other murderous regimes. It's always USA. I don't like the war and I certainly think the reasons for it are dubious and you all know what I think of Bush - but anti-americanism is so immature, even if some of the people on this site invites anti-americanism when you read their posts.
Right...or why they didn't protest against the war on Milosevic
Are you saying that Clinton knew and did nothing? Really, I didn't know - I'm not being sarcastic. I've heard that FBI had indications that something was going on but didn't take it too seriously - but never that the president of USA ignored it.
Precisely. In fact there's a big stir that on the day of the attack Mrs. Clinton said "It's Bin Laden that did this." That alone is enough evidence that she had prior knowledge... not even counting the reams of intel and the attack on the USS Cole.
Then don't ask for the support of the world either and don't mock countries like France. And I think USA started to pay off their debts to UN like some time in the 90's, debts because of not paying "the member fee" for decades. And are you aware of that there are a lot of things that USA is like the only western country that doesn't participate in. There's this "agreement" or "convention", or what the hell you call it, about human rights that Somalia and USA are the only members that haven't signed. I mean... Somalia!
Who mocks France? Not I. I think they suck, but I don't mock them. I think their memories are too short and their inclination toward self preservation at any cost too long.
I haven't heard any evidence what so ever of that he was in fact involved. And since when did this war stop to be about disarment and start to be about payback time for 9-11? Just another argument to win the public opinion.
He said in the press that the US should prepare for a "calamity even greater than that delivered by his brothers on 9-11." There is also strong evidence (see Powell's presentation) that members of Al-Queda were housed in Baghdad. Finally, Iraq is mentioned several times by Tim McVeigh in regards to the Oklahoma City bombing. Whether Iraq is directly responsible for 9-11 or not, they support terrorism in a time when they are required under sanctions to disarm. If laws are being broken, they are being broken by Saddam.
The war is not illegal, or at least not anymore illegal than any other war, but it lacks legitemacy according to the "laws" of UN.
F*ck the UN. The US is a sovereign nation.
The established american political left isn't in the same solar system as socialism. Gore lost the election when Bush proclaimed his politics as "compassionate conservatism". Democrats: "What the ****?? That's what we do!!"
[b] So Bush is a great orator after all, huh? He swung the vote of the far left into his corner with one speech.
Are the american shores being defended in Bagdad? This is not the way to a safer world.
For starters, yes. And I believe it is a way to guarantee a safer world. Iraqui republican guard is calling for help from terrorists worldwide. I say this, without a doubt labels that regime as terrorist scum. Also, I hope they come... then we can get them all in one place and send tham to Allah. That's where they want to be anyways... I have no problem helping them achieve their dreams.
There's a swedish citizen on Guantanamo and USA won't release him because "he won't tell us what he are going to do in the future". That is the only reason to why they are holding him - they don't have anything on him at all.
Details.
By keeping that swedish citizen USA are breaking the Geneva Convetion, the same convention that USA are accusing Iraq of breaking when they show US p.o.w.'s on tv. USA are defending the keeping of the prisoners on Guantanamo by saying that it's a part of the war against terrorism, a war not "covered" by the Geneva Convention. But at the same time they are justifying the war on Iraq as a part of the war against terrorism - but all of a sudden the Geneva Convention is in use again.
Who is he? The US just grabbed a random guy off the street?
By the way. 14 or 15 of the 19 terrorists in the planes on 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia, the american allied. Why doesn't USA attack them? It's a dictatorship too. But US-friendly.
It's a Kingdom. And if the Kingdom supports terrorism against the US then they should be added to the list.
Piddzilla
04-02-03, 10:24 AM
Why can't you quote the same way everybody else does, you dingbat you???
I would like to respond to your pathetic post, but now I don't have the time becuase of your silly quoting-technique.
You suck on so many levels, grandpa!!
:p
Sir Toose
04-02-03, 10:29 AM
Oh come on, snotnose. Wipe away the tears and give it a shot. Grandpa will show you how life in the real world works.
:laugh:
Little turd.
:yup:
Piddzilla
04-03-03, 07:58 AM
Ever spotted the button that says "quote", old boy?? I think your eyesight is going.
Ok, here goes...
Originally posted by Sir Toose
[quote]Nobody said anything because we had Captain Blojob in the white house demilitarizing the US. Now that we have a real president the mistakes of the past 8 years will be cleaned up. Saddam was never excused from war with the US. We had a 12 year cease fire in which his promises were not kept... no talking about being gung-ho...it took us 12 years to enforce.
Oh, shut up... It took the world's greatest military power 12 years to enforce against Iraq? Honestly, I think I won that part of the argument quite clearly. What is best having for president? A guy getting his dick sucked off in the oval office or an alcoholic daddy's boy who got his entire education and career thanks to his surname? Captain Blojob... I'll drink to that!! Make love not war!!!
Right...or why they didn't protest against the war on Milosevic
I didn't protest against it because I thought it did more good than harm. I'm not so sure that is the case with this war. Frankly, I'm pretty sure it's the opposite.
Precisely. In fact there's a big stir that on the day of the attack Mrs. Clinton said "It's Bin Laden that did this." That alone is enough evidence that she had prior knowledge... not even counting the reams of intel and the attack on the USS Cole.
I think there was a lot of people in high places saying "It's Bin Laden that did this." on that day. He is one of the usual suspects. I remember that my first thought was "The Palestinians!". If it was the palestinians, does that mean that I knew about it because that was the first thing that came to mind? You are accusing a New York-senator (that's what she is, right?) for not doing anything about serious threats to New York City? That doesn't make sense and if her name was Barbara I don't think you would even go there in the first place. You really hate your ex-president, don't you? Admit it, it's only because he gets all the women!
Who mocks France? Not I. I think they suck, but I don't mock them. I think their memories are too short and their inclination toward self preservation at any cost too long.
Well, I think your nose must be very short since you're can't see beyond it, which is obviously not very far. "Self preservation at any cost" goes for USA more than for any other country. The problem with this is the veto in the UN's security council. If the french, and no one else for that matter, had the right to veto, no one would give a flying **** about how they voted. About the short memory of the french I assume you mean the WWII. I can't see how you can compare WWII with preventive strikes against another country.
He said in the press that the US should prepare for a "calamity even greater than that delivered by his brothers on 9-11." There is also strong evidence (see Powell's presentation) that members of Al-Queda were housed in Baghdad. Finally, Iraq is mentioned several times by Tim McVeigh in regards to the Oklahoma City bombing. Whether Iraq is directly responsible for 9-11 or not, they support terrorism in a time when they are required under sanctions to disarm. If laws are being broken, they are being broken by Saddam.
One thing doesn't exclude the other. Saddam is a dictator. He doesn't need the support of the public opinion of his country nor the rest of the world to do what he wants. It's clear that Iraq hasn't been cooperating with UN but if Great Britain had its way in this matter instead of USA and France arguing over freedom fries, maybe we could have resolved this issue in a peaceful but determined and forceful way. But anyway, I haven't yet seen any evidence about neither weapons of massdestruction nor connections to Al Qaida. I'm not saying there aint any connections or weapons - but I don't think US needs any evidence to attack. They just needed them to get the green light from UN and the very important public support.
F*ck the UN. The US is a sovereign nation.
And a member of the UN and should as such respect the laws as everybody else. What ideals are you fighting for over there anyway?
So Bush is a great orator after all, huh? He swung the vote of the far left into his corner with one speech.
Well, I was more pointing out how hard it is to see the difference between a right wing party and a just a little bit more right wing party. And I'm sure that Bush has speech writers just like everybody else and that he didn't won the election because of one speech. By the way, I don't think it was the far left that switched from democrats to republicans, it was surley the voters "in the middle".
For starters, yes. And I believe it is a way to guarantee a safer world. Iraqui republican guard is calling for help from terrorists worldwide. I say this, without a doubt labels that regime as terrorist scum. Also, I hope they come... then we can get them all in one place and send tham to Allah. That's where they want to be anyways... I have no problem helping them achieve their dreams.
Of course they're calling for terrorists! They're at war against the biggest army in the world!!! This is so obvious, I could have told you that before. I did tell you and all pro-war people that before. This war will lead to a lot more terror attacks and, no, it wont keep them in one place so you can kill them off one by one. Instead it's a very big and possible risk that this war will spread to other countries, starting with Syria. The arab world sees this as an attack on precisely the arab world - not an attack on Iraq. They don't like Saddam but they don't like US's interference either. The biggest reason to why the arab world wanted Saddam to go into exile was that they didn't want USA in the region. And for every child or woman that die in Iraq by US bombs, at least ten new terrorists are being made. They are all ready to blow themselves to pieces for "the cause" an attitude not shared by the soldiers of the alliance. I think this can get real ugly and messy. I really hope you're right, Toose. But I don't think so.
Details.
I don't have more details than the american diplomats are giving us. He's probably being held because of him being a muslim and associating with other suspect islamists. The americans have stated that he's not being held because of any crime but because "he won't cooperate" and because "he wont tell us about his future plans". We have laws and a very well functioning justice system in Sweden too, you know, and we can take care of our own suspects, thank you very much. For a long period of time the swedish lawyers weren't even allowed to visit him in prison and the demands from swedish authorities to turn him over to our police were being ignored for a long time too. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to be the norm anymore.
Who is he? The US just grabbed a random guy off the street?
I don't know. They grabbed a guy that was in the wrong place at the wrong time obviously. If he is a random average guy, we just don't know. The only thing we know is that USA is holding him on baseless grounds and that USA has chosen not to charge him with any crime. But still, they are robbing him of his freedom. And this is violation of the human rights.
It's a Kingdom. And if the Kingdom supports terrorism against the US then they should be added to the list.
It should be, but it won't because the king is US-friendly and the world's biggest producer of oil. But if those pilots were iraqis that would be an evidence of Iraq's involvement in 9-11. But the fact that they were saudis (like Osama) doesn't lead to the same kind of conclusions by the US. Hypocrisy all the way through.
And just because it's a kingdom doesn't mean it can't be a dicatorship. It's not democratic. Sweden is a kingdom too, but the king has no political power at all and is forbidden to make political statements. He's just a symbol. That's not the case in Saudi Arabia though.
It's seems like USA is only interested in installing democracy and "the american way" in dictatorships that doesn't like USA.
Sir Toose
04-03-03, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Piddzilla
Ever spotted the button that says "quote", old boy?? I think your eyesight is going.
I gotta come back for the rest of this..
You crack me up, kid. I think maybe you are my favorite member. :laugh:
Piddzilla
04-03-03, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Sir Toose
I gotta come back for the rest of this..
You crack me up, kid. I think maybe you are my favorite member. :laugh:
I think maybe I am too. :D
Sir Toose
04-03-03, 07:10 PM
You know what?
I'm not gonna respond. I'm too tired and it's not like you're really looking for any nuggets of wisdom from me anyways.
I'm going to go have a beer, then do some lifting or something.
You know what I'd say anyways.
I hope I'm not intruding on the big boys' spat here, but...
Originally posted by Piddzilla
Oh, shut up... It took the world's greatest military power 12 years to enforce against Iraq? Honestly, I think I won that part of the argument quite clearly. What is best having for president? A guy getting his dick sucked off in the oval office or an alcoholic daddy's boy who got his entire education and career thanks to his surname? Captain Blojob... I'll drink to that!! Make love not war!!!
That president who got a hummer in the office is also responsible for the deaths of countless innocent Sudanese, because he ordered the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in 1998, thinking it was a weapons factory. The death toll was (and still is) incalculable, as it knocked out 60% of their medicines and medical supplies. Best part: this was the day before Monica Lewinsky went to testify. Captain Blojob had to look presidential.
Also, ever hear the name Ricky Ray Rector? Bill Clinton was a criminal and a liar.
Give me the dyslexic aristocrat, any day. At least he's forward about bombing other countries.
I think there was a lot of people in high places saying "It's Bin Laden that did this." on that day. He is one of the usual suspects. I remember that my first thought was "The Palestinians!". If it was the palestinians, does that mean that I knew about it because that was the first thing that came to mind? You are accusing a New York-senator (that's what she is, right?) for not doing anything about serious threats to New York City? That doesn't make sense and if her name was Barbara I don't think you would even go there in the first place. You really hate your ex-president, don't you? Admit it, it's only because he gets all the women!
I hate him because he lied and is responsible for many deaths. Not sure why Toose does.
One thing doesn't exclude the other. Saddam is a dictator. He doesn't need the support of the public opinion of his country nor the rest of the world to do what he wants. It's clear that Iraq hasn't been cooperating with UN but if Great Britain had its way in this matter instead of USA and France arguing over freedom fries, maybe we could have resolved this issue in a peaceful but determined and forceful way. But anyway, I haven't yet seen any evidence about neither weapons of massdestruction nor connections to Al Qaida. I'm not saying there aint any connections or weapons - but I don't think US needs any evidence to attack. They just needed them to get the green light from UN and the very important public support.
This argument makes no sense to me, because it's basically saying that a cause can't be good unless it's supported by a multitude of people. It's that kind of attitude that allowed Hitler and Milosevic to stay in power for as long as they did.
And a member of the UN and should as such respect the laws as everybody else.
That implies that the UN works. The UN's policy toward Iraq has been one of complicity, barring the disgusting sanctions laws that have killed countless Iraqi children. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless fascist military dictator who is directly responsible for these sanctions being instituted in the first place; his removal would rightly bring about the removal of the sanctions, as well as free an oppressed people from a fascist-terror state.
Why didn't the UN move for regime change in 1996, when Saddam kicked out the inspectors?
It should be, but it won't because the king is US-friendly and the world's biggest producer of oil. But if those pilots were iraqis that would be an evidence of Iraq's involvement in 9-11. But the fact that they were saudis (like Osama) doesn't lead to the same kind of conclusions by the US. Hypocrisy all the way through.
And just because it's a kingdom doesn't mean it can't be a dicatorship. It's not democratic. Sweden is a kingdom too, but the king has no political power at all and is forbidden to make political statements. He's just a symbol. That's not the case in Saudi Arabia though.
It's seems like USA is only interested in installing democracy and "the american way" in dictatorships that doesn't like USA.
You're probably right. I speak for myself when I say I'm for toppling every oppressive regime (including Saudi and Pakistan), whether done "the american way" or not. Hypocrisy seems a peripheral issue to me when a country is being liberated from tyranny and oppression. I don't care about the US's reasons for being there, as long as the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples finally become in charge of their own destinies. If that oil money doesn't reach the people it belongs to, then I (and plenty of others) will be the first to object.
Sorry if you and Toose had a personal thing going on, I just wanted to join the argument...
sunfrog
04-04-03, 06:10 AM
oil in afghanistan (http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm)
more oil (http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm)
p.s. Toose, we do need to listen to the UN we don't own the world.
Bush (oil) administration includes:
Dick Cheney, VP: Until 2000 - President of Halliburton (in position to build the Afghan pipeline). Halliburton already got afat contract to rebuild Iraq
Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor: 1991-2000 - Manager of Chevron Oil, and Kazakhstan go-between.
Donald Evans, Sec. Commerce: former CEO, Tom Brown, Inc. $1.2 billion oil company).
Gale Norton, Sec. Interior: former national chairwoman of the Coalition of Republican Environmental Advocates - funded by, among others, BP Amoco.
Spencer Abraham, Sec. Energy: Up through his failed bid for senatorial reelection in the 2000, he received more oil and gas industry money than all but three other senators (January 1997 through July 2000).
Thomas White, Secretary of the Army: former Vice Chairman of Enron and a large shareholder of that company's stock
Did George W. Bush once have a financial relationship with Enron? In 1986, according to a publicly available record, the two drilled for oil together--at a time when Bush was a not-too-successful oil man in Texas and his oil venture was in dire need of help. Bush's business association with Enron, it seems, has not previously been reported.
In 1986, Spectrum 7, a privately owned oil company chaired by Bush faced serious trouble. Two years earlier, Bush had merged his failing Bush Exploration Company (previously known as Arbusto--the Spanish word for shrub) with the profitable Spectrum 7, and he was named chief executive and director of the company.
More (http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=21)
sunfrog
04-04-03, 06:46 AM
The Soviets had estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at up to 5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in the 1970s
Soviet estimates from the late 1970s placed Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves at 95 million barrels.
Besides oil and natural gas, Afghanistan also is estimated to have 73 million tons of coal reserves, most of which is located in the region between Herat and Badashkan in the northern part of the country. more (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html)
Due to its location between the oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Basin and the Indian Ocean, Afghanistan has long been mentioned as a potential pipeline route, though in the near term, several obstacles will likely prevent Afghanistan from becoming an energy transit corridor. Unocal had pursued a possible natural gas pipeline from Turmenistan to Pakistan in the mid-1990s, but pulled out after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998. The new Afghan government under President Karzai has tried to revive the pipeline plan.
And he did, after all he did work for Unocal as an advisor. Why am I talking about Afghanistan? Because we all know Iraq has oil too. That's what Bush and Cheny want, next what Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz want, why Bush is pushing the imaginary Osama/Saddam link, and why we're really fighting for "Iraqi Freedom."
This oil thing is ridiculous. I posted an article tearing apart most of your claims, and you just said "it has to be wrong because its conclusion is wrong." Clearly, your mind is completely closed.
If this were about oil, why haven't we raped Kuwait? Why didn't we take action in Venezuela? They had a coup, for crying out loud...we had an excuse. And here's something else: the oil companies have been losing money steadily for some time. What's your explanation for that? Bush has had 2 years to help his buddies out...what's taking so long, Sun?
Originally posted by sunfrog
p.s. Toose, we do need to listen to the UN we don't own the world.
Bush took an oath to the American people -- not the UN. If he believes the UN is asking him to do something that is NOT beneficial to his people overall, it's his DUTY as President to move forward without their support. It's his duty to procure the support when possible, as well, but it's his JOB to put the US before the UN, for crying out loud.
sunfrog
04-06-03, 06:29 PM
I knew you were SuperMonkeyBob! :love: Because this is the beginning. Why didn't anything happen before the beginning, because it hadn't begun yet. :p
Facts Yoda, where are they? You posted one guys opinion. I posted facts in this thread, that's what you wanted.
Brown & Root Joins the War on Terrorism
Employees of Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton Corporation of Dallas, Texas, are set to arrive at the Bagram airbase in southern Afghanistan in late April or early May 2002
Brown and Root will take charge of support services including base camp maintenance, laundry services, food services, airfield services, and supply operations, among others. Gale L. Smith, a spokesperson for the U.S. Army Operations Support Command in Alexandria, Virginia refuses to confirm or deny whether Brown & Root would be working on similar bases in Manas, Kyrgyzstan or other sites in Afghanistan and Pakistan to support Operation Enduring Freedom. The new job is one of the first examples of a lucrative, new ten-year contract that Brown & Root won from the Pentagon on December 14, 2001 titled Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP).
The Revolving Door
Halliburton, Brown and Root's parent company, is a Fortune 500 construction corporation working primarily for the oil industry. In the early 1990s the company was awarded the job to study and then implement privatization of routine army functions under Dick Cheney, then secretary of defense.
When Cheney quit his job at the Pentagon, he landed the job as chief executive of Halliburton, bringing with him, his trusted deputy David Gribbin. The two substantially increased Halliburton's government business until they quit in 2000 when Cheney was elected vice-president, taking multi-million dollar golden parachutes with them. Since then, another former military office and Cheney confidante, Admiral Joe Lopez, former commander in chief for U.S. forces in southern Europe, took over Gribbin's former job of go-between the government and the company, according to Brown & Root's own press releases. Other close friends include Richard Armitage, the assistant secretary of state, who worked as a consultant to Halliburton before taking up his present job.
Critics charge that this is a classic example of the revolving door between government and big business. Bill Hartung, senior research fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York, says: "Cheney gives new meaning to the term revolving door. If he does not get elected president next, I have no doubt he will return to Halliburton when he leaves the White House."
And Harvey Wasserman, author of The Last Energy War, says the Brown & Root contracts are a scandal. "The Bush-Cheney team have turned the United States into a family business. That's why we haven't seen Cheney -- he's cutting deals with his old buddies who gave him a multi-million dollar golden handshake," says Wasserman. "Have they no grace, no shame, no common sense? Why don't just have Enron run America? Or have Zapata Petroleum (George W. Bush's failed oil exploration venture) build a pipeline across Afghanistan?"
The Business of War
Last year Brown & Root took in $13 billion in revenues, according to its latest annual report. Currently Brown and Root estimates it has $740 million in existing United States government contracts, approximately 37% of their global business, most of which are in addition to the LOGCAP deal.
For example, in mid-November 2001 Brown & Root was paid $2 million to reinforce the United States embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, under contract with the State department. More recently Brown & Root was paid $16 million to go to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in March 2002 to build a 408-person prison for captured Taliban fighters under a contract with the U.S. Navy, according to Pentagon press releases.
That's by no means all -- Brown & Root employees can be found back home running support operations for the U.S. Army in Fort Knox, Kentucky to the U.S. Naval Base in El Centro, California.
Wheee! Let's get rich off terrorism! Not what you were expecting huh?
Originally posted by sunfrog
Because this is the beginning. Why didn't anything happen before the beginning, because it hadn't begun yet. :p
What?
Originally posted by sunfrog
Facts Yoda, where are they? You posted one guys opinion.
Uh, no. I posted one guy's article, containing facts. I'm guessing you didn't really read it, given your fabricated accusation.
You actually stated that "it has to be wrong because its conclusion is wrong." I don't think you quite realize how narrow that kind of thinking is. The fact that you glossed over every last question I asked in my last post is only further evidence to support this. You don't know what you're talking about, or why you're allegedly right...you just know that you are. That, bud, is what is known as "bassackwards."
Piddzilla
04-07-03, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Sir Toose
You know what I'd say anyways.
Yeah, you might as well keep that crap to yourself, Tööse. (you know, "tös" in swedish is a cute little world for "girl". :D )
Originally posted by Steve
I hope I'm not intruding on the big boys' spat here, but...
You know I wrote a long post replying to you yesterday, Steve, and then I lost it pressing "Done"! I hate these damn public computers.
That president who got a hummer in the office is also responsible for the deaths of countless innocent Sudanese, because he ordered the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in 1998, thinking it was a weapons factory. The death toll was (and still is) incalculable, as it knocked out 60% of their medicines and medical supplies. Best part: this was the day before Monica Lewinsky went to testify. Captain Blojob had to look presidential.
Also, ever hear the name Ricky Ray Rector? Bill Clinton was a criminal and a liar.
Give me the dyslexic aristocrat, any day. At least he's forward about bombing other countries.
Look, I'm not going to defend Clinton here, that was never the issue. What I meant was that I don't understand how you can blame him for 9-11. That's absurd. Some people blindly follow their president whatever he says and does and cursing others for not standing by their divine leader in the fight for freedom. But they only follow him if he belongs to the right party.
And, no, I can't say I have ever heard of RRR.
About Clinton bombing because of political reasons and Bush bombing for freedom... Come on, you're smarter than that. Why do you think you never see any bodies from the war on tv? Because it would POLITICALLY threaten the whole operation.
Yeah, that Bush is one stand up guy. Good luck with the Act of Patriotism Part II, by the way. How does it feel to soon be living in the largest police state in the world?
I hate him because he lied and is responsible for many deaths. Not sure why Toose does.
I can respect that. But maybe that tells you that media should start focusing on politics instead of private life.
This argument makes no sense to me, because it's basically saying that a cause can't be good unless it's supported by a multitude of people. It's that kind of attitude that allowed Hitler and Milosevic to stay in power for as long as they did.
Well, first of all, UN didn't exist when Hitler was in power and I think we can all agree on that UN was founded very much because of just Hitler.
And your argument does not make any sense to me either. Milosevic was the leader over an undemocratic country. But that doesn't give any other country the right to just march in and change the regime. I don't consider USA to be 100% democratic and free by my definition of deomcracy, but what the hell can I do about that? Now. When civil war started in ex-Yugoslavia, that's when it started to get real ugly (as it always does in war). That's when genocide started to show its ugly face and that's when UN, because of its bureaucracy and inability to come to conclusions, thanks to oldfashioned rules and standards and uninterested members, did too little and USA had to start bombing - with official and unofficial support from other countries. That was the right thing to do because it saved more lives than it took and it was urgent and justified to use force because of the situation that was present in Kosovo back then. The situation in Iraq isn't, or wasn't, like that.
That implies that the UN works. The UN's policy toward Iraq has been one of complicity, barring the disgusting sanctions laws that have killed countless Iraqi children. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless fascist military dictator who is directly responsible for these sanctions being instituted in the first place; his removal would rightly bring about the removal of the sanctions, as well as free an oppressed people from a fascist-terror state.
No, that implies that UN could work if its members, and especially its most powerful members, wanted it to work. If the world community really wanted to cooperate it wouldn't be so hard. Now the nations are almost dragged to UN kicking and screaming just so they can sit there and be politically correct. If USA was honestly interested in world peace and unity without poverty or oppression they would work for upholding the UN laws and rights, not opposing them and reject them. UN consists of its members, all the countries of the world, and it's a deomcratic organization in that sense that it's up to the members to make it vital and make it count. If it works too slow or not well enough, well, why don't the members do something about that? It's not like Kofi Anan should do it all by himself, you know.
I agree that Iraq will be a better place without Saddam. But some people have never experienced democracy in all their lives. They are used to minding their own business and letting the governing of the country be done by the leader. And just as the americans don't want an arab in the White House, the iraqis doesn't want an american general telling them what to do.
I was opposing the war before the war started but, as I have said in a previous post on here somewhere, when the war started I just hoped that it would be over as quickly ever possible without too much bloodshed. But it looks pretty bad.
Why didn't the UN move for regime change in 1996, when Saddam kicked out the inspectors?
I can't recall any time that the UN has moved for a regime change in any country. That is not, or hasn't been, its purpose. They should however acted more powerful, yes. But why didn't USA attack? Because they thought they had the situation under control - which they had. But children were still dying, yes, because of the stupid sanctions, which USA and the rest of the world didn't give a **** about. Now, when an arab equals terrorist however, USA feel that they can never even risk not having control over just about everything.
You're probably right. I speak for myself when I say I'm for toppling every oppressive regime (including Saudi and Pakistan), whether done "the american way" or not. Hypocrisy seems a peripheral issue to me when a country is being liberated from tyranny and oppression. I don't care about the US's reasons for being there, as long as the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples finally become in charge of their own destinies. If that oil money doesn't reach the people it belongs to, then I (and plenty of others) will be the first to object.
Hypocrisy is never peripheral, my friend. And it doesn't go very well with "liberation".
Sorry if you and Toose had a personal thing going on, I just wanted to join the argument...
This is a public forum, not a private phone call. No matter how much I love Toose, it's never too personal for someone else to interrupt.
The Silver Bullet
04-07-03, 09:58 AM
...but it's his JOB to put the US before the UN, for crying out loud.
You know I love you, Chingo, but that is the sole scariest thing you've ever written and I've read. With that logic we'd all be killing everyone else all the time because they might get us. "Time to wipe out Ethiopia. You know they've got the power."
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
You know I love you, Chingo, but that is the sole scariest thing you've ever written and I've read. With that logic we'd all be killing everyone else all the time because they might get us. "Time to wipe out Ethiopia. You know they've got the power."
That's not what "that logic" says at all. It's not in America's interests to wipe out anyone who might be a threat. The only thing this logic says is that it's the President's job to do what he thinks is best for America -- not do do what he thinks is best for America if the UN happens to agree.
Danger Diabolik
04-07-03, 10:24 PM
Sunfrog said:
Then let's bomb France. France hates us, have you seen the protests? Saddam didn't do it Toose. I love your avatar btw.
You all forget about the oil, his dad and Texas.
Then there's the chemical weapons and nukes Saddam'll have in 5 years
Then the part where we didn't wait for the UN's decision
The part where we sent troops before any other options were considered
The part where Bush announced plans to attack on Sept 12
And the part where Saddam didn't blow up the Twin Towers
The part where Congress voted to give Bush the power to go to war
The part where this war is illegal
All that adds up to bull**** but after the tv or whoever started calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom everyone forgot. Funny they didn't make that a big selling point before the war.
What Sunfrog forgets is:
The part where the UN's 'trusted' allies, France and Germany, pussied out because they had previous deals with the Iraqis they were afraid of losing money on if a war broke out, and their failure to disclose said information to their allies at large. Why should the US and Britian answer to a bunch of liars when they lied to US about their business deals with Iraq while using their objection to the war as a cover story?
The gassing of Kurds, Iranians and Iraqis by 'Chemical Ali' and his goons.
The starvation and murder of innocent Iraqi men women and children.
The fact that the UN and America are feeding and clothing these starved people as we speak, and that many food stashes belonging Saddam's bullies are now being used to feed the people. Does that sound like murder to you?
The fact that a major Ayatollah has told the people of Iraq to NOT stand in the way of the coalition forces...
The fact that Iraq had ample time to comply with the UN resolutions which he constantly mocked and ignored.
Continual violations of the no-Fly Zone by tracking and firing upon US and British warplanes in an area enforced by UN laws.
Saddam terrorizing and invading his neighbors, as well as his people who are all basically scared sh*tless of him and what he would do if they exercised a bit of free thinking.
The fact that under the skin, radical Muslims are radical Muslims, and will continue to exploit the radical branch of their religion to undermine and destroy the west and her followers while using the skirts of the peaceful Islamic community to hide under because the peaceful community is too scared to stand up to them. Talk about human shields.....
You know a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq exists, surely as the Taliban was a group of mixed extremists from many other Mideast and Asian republics (as well as one American a-hole who deserves to die, hi John!) the point is is that extremists can and will cross linguistic and cultural barriers to defeat an enemy.
Look at the chemical stashes that have been found. I suppose they were going to grow a victory garden with all the Mustard gas, Sarin and VX components?
When will people wake up and smell the coffee?
Terrorism against other people as well as the US is a crime, and I think that Saddam has done more than his share to his neighbors. It's not about oil, it's not about Islam, it's about finally teaching the scholars of terror a lesson they won't forget because they won't be around to see it. Sleep tight boys because we're coming...
Oh, and for the pansy wansie protestors who bitch about innocent civilians, just remember that on 9/11, 3,000 of YOUR countrymen were innocent civilians too.
But that's OK because a majority of you feel we deserved it, right? What if it was YOUR loved one(s) on Sep.11? You'd think differently, wouldn't you?
Originally posted by Piddzilla
You know I wrote a long post replying to you yesterday, Steve, and then I lost it pressing "Done"! I hate these damn public computers.
That's the worst. Always happens to me. I feel your pain, brother.
Look, I'm not going to defend Clinton here, that was never the issue. What I meant was that I don't understand how you can blame him for 9-11. That's absurd. Some people blindly follow their president whatever he says and does and cursing others for not standing by their divine leader in the fight for freedom. But they only follow him if he belongs to the right party.
In this case I agree with you. I thought you were saying something completely different.
And, no, I can't say I have ever heard of RRR.
Ricky Ray Rector was a mentally retarded black inmate whom Clinton ordered to be executed the day of the New Hampshire primary in 1992. This man was so lost that he saved his dessert 'for later' at his last meal. The reason I mention him is that if a Republican had done the same thing, there'd have been a whole lot of angry outraged Democrats. The Democrats still refuse to acknowledge that this happened. Clinton apologists who are supposedly on the left are toeing a party line rather than doing what's right.
About Clinton bombing because of political reasons and Bush bombing for freedom... Come on, you're smarter than that. Why do you think you never see any bodies from the war on tv? Because it would POLITICALLY threaten the whole operation.
I never said I thought the sole reason Bush ordered the bombings was to free the Iraqi people. Maybe oil does play a part in it. I don't particularly care. The bottom line for me is that these people are going to be freed of 25 years of terror. Clinton's bombing was an act of terrorism.
Yeah, that Bush is one stand up guy. Good luck with the Act of Patriotism Part II, by the way. How does it feel to soon be living in the largest police state in the world?
When things get out of hand here, I'll be right there marching against the riot squads. If the US becomes a police state, I'll support regime change here too.
Well, first of all, UN didn't exist when Hitler was in power and I think we can all agree on that UN was founded very much because of just Hitler.
I understand that. I was using him as an example of a type of leader. Replace Hitler with Mobutu.
And your argument does not make any sense to me either. Milosevic was the leader over an undemocratic country. But that doesn't give any other country the right to just march in and change the regime. I don't consider USA to be 100% democratic and free by my definition of deomcracy, but what the hell can I do about that? Now. When civil war started in ex-Yugoslavia, that's when it started to get real ugly (as it always does in war). That's when genocide started to show its ugly face and that's when UN, because of its bureaucracy and inability to come to conclusions, thanks to oldfashioned rules and standards and uninterested members, did too little and USA had to start bombing - with official and unofficial support from other countries. That was the right thing to do because it saved more lives than it took and it was urgent and justified to use force because of the situation that was present in Kosovo back then. The situation in Iraq isn't, or wasn't, like that.
My analogy was much simpler than you're making it: Milosevic ran a terror regime (contrary to what Henry Kissinger believes), so does Saddam Hussein. If large masses of people are being murdered (and countless others are being threatened, in this case), the world needs to stop it from happening. That's what I believe is right.
No, that implies that UN could work if its members, and especially its most powerful members, wanted it to work. If the world community really wanted to cooperate it wouldn't be so hard. Now the nations are almost dragged to UN kicking and screaming just so they can sit there and be politically correct. If USA was honestly interested in world peace and unity without poverty or oppression they would work for upholding the UN laws and rights, not opposing them and reject them. UN consists of its members, all the countries of the world, and it's a deomcratic organization in that sense that it's up to the members to make it vital and make it count. If it works too slow or not well enough, well, why don't the members do something about that? It's not like Kofi Anan should do it all by himself, you know.
Point taken. But now you're talking ideals. How does that deal with the current situation? I think that an organization like the UN is quite necessary, and that the US is in part responsible for its overall deterioration. But at the same time, people are dying. No one has stepped forward except the US and the heroic Kurdish and Iraqi resistance movements. What would the future hold for those people, as well as the people of many other countries, if Saddam Hussein maintained his power? The UN refused to address this.
I agree that Iraq will be a better place without Saddam. But some people have never experienced democracy in all their lives. They are used to minding their own business and letting the governing of the country be done by the leader. And just as the americans don't want an arab in the White House, the iraqis doesn't want an american general telling them what to do.
Point taken. And if this american general abuses his power or imposes any kind of statist military fascism, he should be removed as well. These people deserve the right to govern themselves.
I can't recall any time that the UN has moved for a regime change in any country. That is not, or hasn't been, its purpose. They should however acted more powerful, yes. But why didn't USA attack? Because they thought they had the situation under control - which they had. But children were still dying, yes, because of the stupid sanctions, which USA and the rest of the world didn't give a **** about. Now, when an arab equals terrorist however, USA feel that they can never even risk not having control over just about everything.
Hasn't the UN's purpose always been to maintain civility and freedom among the world's people?
The arabs aren't all terrorists, but the theocratic leaders and religious zealots are, and they should be dealt with accordingly.
Hypocrisy is never peripheral, my friend. And it doesn't go very well with "liberation".
The hypocrisy here is two-sided. Most of the anti-war faction has cited plenty of other instances in which the US has exercised its own brand of terror. The argument is that the same things will happen in this case. George Bush's campaign financiers getting rich quick is hardly what I'm concerned with when a leader like Saddam Hussein remains in power and the people in his country are dying and he could possibly be giving money and weapons to Islamic fundamentalists.
This is a public forum, not a private phone call. No matter how much I love Toose, it's never too personal for someone else to interrupt.
Gracias. I doff my hat.:cool:
Originally posted by Piddzilla
Yeah, that Bush is one stand up guy. Good luck with the Act of Patriotism Part II, by the way. How does it feel to soon be living in the largest police state in the world?
Eh? I was unaware any of our basic civil rights were being violated.
The Silver Bullet
04-08-03, 02:34 AM
...not do do what he thinks is best for America if the UN happens to agree.
Yes, he has to think about what is best for America. The UN has to think about what is best for the world. You can't tell me that if what helps the US is not going to help the world they should go ahead and do it anyway? I'm not saying that toppling Iraq isn't good for the world, not at all, but I'm simply asking. If something that might help the US is going to be bad for everyone else on the planet, should the US do it?
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
If something that might help the US is going to be bad for everyone else on the planet, should the US do it?
No. It's a Catch-22; anything which is going to be bad for "everyone else on the planet" isgoing to be bad for the US as well.
The Silver Bullet
04-08-03, 03:08 AM
Ah, but what if, say, the world was going to explode, and there were these giant caves, right, and only five million people could go to them, and the United States bypassed the UN, who wanted to hold a lottery for the places, and said, "No! We're taking five million Americans down there! To Hell with ya'! We'll fight you with our shoes if you try to remove us!"
What then?
Sir Toose
04-08-03, 10:52 AM
Depends on where the caves are located.
if they're in the US y'all are in trouble.
:D
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Ah, but what if, say, the world was going to explode, and there were these giant caves, right, and only five million people could go to them, and the United States bypassed the UN, who wanted to hold a lottery for the places, and said, "No! We're taking five million Americans down there! To Hell with ya'! We'll fight you with our shoes if you try to remove us!"
What then?
I hate you.
Piddzilla
04-08-03, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Yoda
Eh? I was unaware any of our basic civil rights were being violated.
I read an article about it and to me it's pretty clear that they are.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
I read an article about it and to me it's pretty clear that they are.
:rolleyes: I've read similar "the sky is falling"-esque articles, and they're pretty much all bull. I've yet to hear of a single basic right that's being violated. There are a bunch of made-up rights being violated, however...things people think they're legally entitled to, but actually never were.
It's rather like people complaining about how long getting through airport security took shortly after 9/11...they were so used to it being quick and easy that they saw is as a violation of some sort when it ceased to be so, not realizing that they don't have a right to it, and their civil liberties were not in violation because they spent an extra hour in Houston.
The Silver Bullet
04-09-03, 03:20 AM
Why do you hate me? Did I outsmart you? Please say yes. I'll die happy.
Piddzilla
04-09-03, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Yoda
:rolleyes: I've read similar "the sky is falling"-esque articles, and they're pretty much all bull. I've yet to hear of a single basic right that's being violated. There are a bunch of made-up rights being violated, however...things people think they're legally entitled to, but actually never were.
It's rather like people complaining about how long getting through airport security took shortly after 9/11...they were so used to it being quick and easy that they saw is as a violation of some sort when it ceased to be so, not realizing that they don't have a right to it, and their civil liberties were not in violation because they spent an extra hour in Houston.
Well, first of all. Which are "the rights"? I mean, it sounds to you that there are some abstract "rights" that has nothing to do with laws or "the wordly" life.
I'm talking about making things that used to be illegal legal. Like registrating people's library loans and their general political views, tapping ordinary people's home, searching ordinary people's home without a warrant, deporting people out of the country based on indications and a lot more. In short, giving the intelligence services of USA the power to spy on americans. If any of you go to the library and get a copy of the Quran, you'll be in their files.
What kind of freedom and democracy are you fighting for over there anyway??
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Why do you hate me? Did I outsmart you? Please say yes. I'll die happy.
You completely outsmarted me with your hypothetical cave question. Congratulations. :indifferent:
Originally posted by Piddzilla
Well, first of all. Which are "the rights"? I mean, it sounds to you that there are some abstract "rights" that has nothing to do with laws or "the wordly" life.
Rights are something we are legally guaranteed. Not just something we happen to have. See my airport analogy for a fitting example.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
I'm talking about making things that used to be illegal legal. Like registrating people's library loans and their general political views, tapping ordinary people's home, searching ordinary people's home without a warrant, deporting people out of the country based on indications and a lot more. In short, giving the intelligence services of USA the power to spy on americans. If any of you go to the library and get a copy of the Quran, you'll be in their files.
That definition doesn't work. It's illegal for the police to knock down my door right now, but if they've got reason to suspect me for a murder, then it won't be. Does that mean the issuing of a warrant is a violation of my rights? No way.
I've yet to be shown how monitoring access to a PUBLIC library somehow violates my rights. And let's assume for a minute the FBI is reading this right now and putting it in "their files." So? My rights are still in-tact. I find the opponents of this love to list what it entails, but never how it conflicts with any inherent right of mine.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
What kind of freedom and democracy are you fighting for over there anyway??
The kind which doesn't compromise itself to afford a non-existent right to total privacy from all fellow humans, even in public facilities.
Piddzilla
04-10-03, 06:58 AM
Yoda, you speak like a person that is 100% confident that he will never give the authorities a single reason to "check him up". This runs through all of the topics you and I've been involved in here. In short, you don't give a **** about anything as long as it doesn't affect you - no matter it's a tax "reform" or violation of civil rights. May I ask you, are you a member of the republican party? I have never ever heard you say a critical word about anything that the Bush administration has ever done. I have to say that unlike when I first joined this site it doesn't give me anything to debate with you anymore. Your objectivity is non-existent and your arguments therefore totally empty of substance for me. You're like the republican press-secretary on this site (yes, you can take that as a compliment if you must).
Let me tell you about stalinism. Stalin built his whole empire of horror on people's notion that they weren't safe anywhere. Mothers were reporting their own sons to save themselves though the sons had done nothing. At any time Stalin could give the order to execute his closest staff member - for no reason at all, except so everybody would know that they could never be certain about anything. The police had the authorities to do what the hell ever they wanted wherever they wanted whenever they wanted. And Stalin was Saddam's biggest role model as a leader. For every stupid Patriot Act you allow in your country you take one more step closer to stalinism and fascism and one more step away from real freedom. You think this is good for your own security - but what about the freedom of your people?
The Silver Bullet
04-10-03, 07:22 AM
You completely outsmarted me with your hypothetical cave question. Congratulations.
Ha ha! I knew it! And your indifferent straight faced smilie makes me feel even better about my wonderful achievment! I take you to the cleaners, Archibald! I take you there right now!
Originally posted by Piddzilla
Yoda, you speak like a person that is 100% confident that he will never give the authorities a single reason to "check him up". This runs through all of the topics you and I've been involved in here. In short, you don't give a **** about anything as long as it doesn't affect you - no matter it's a tax "reform" or violation of civil rights. May I ask you, are you a member of the republican party? I have never ever heard you say a critical word about anything that the Bush administration has ever done. I have to say that unlike when I first joined this site it doesn't give me anything to debate with you anymore. Your objectivity is non-existent and your arguments therefore totally empty of substance for me. You're like the republican press-secretary on this site (yes, you can take that as a compliment if you must).
You get points for going out on a limb with your claims, but you lose them for falling off. You see, if all this is true, my old man will almost certainly be one of those "watched," given his reading habits, and so will I eventually. Better luck with your next wild, speculative assumption, though.
If you haven't heard me criticize Bush, then you haven't been listening. If you're not hearing these things, it's because you'd simply rather not, as they interfere with your generalization. It's easier to throw a blanket over what I say than it is to explain which rights are being violated (I've asked about this several times without response), or how Bush's tax break plans are at all unfair.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
Let me tell you about stalinism. Stalin built his whole empire of horror on people's notion that they weren't safe anywhere. Mothers were reporting their own sons to save themselves though the sons had done nothing. At any time Stalin could give the order to execute his closest staff member - for no reason at all, except so everybody would know that they could never be certain about anything. The police had the authorities to do what the hell ever they wanted wherever they wanted whenever they wanted. And Stalin was Saddam's biggest role model as a leader. For every stupid Patriot Act you allow in your country you take one more step closer to stalinism and fascism and one more step away from real freedom. You think this is good for your own security - but what about the freedom of your people?
This isn't good for my own security. Thank God what you're describing isn't at all what's happening. Contrary to nonsensical belief, the sky ain't exactly falling when the FBI knows I checked The Sword of the Prophet out of the local library.
Let's see, you've used vast amounts of conjecture to construct a vague sort of personal attack on my credibility, ignored my questions, and adopted a hyperbolic Chicken Little philosophy to domestic wire taps. Exaggeration follows desperation...and though it doesn't rhyme, so do personal attacks, direct or hazy.
sunfrog
04-10-03, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by Danger Diabolik
The part where the UN's 'trusted' allies, France and Germany, pussied out because they had previous deals with the Iraqis they were afraid of losing money on if a war broke out, and their failure to disclose said information to their allies at large. Why should the US and Britian answer to a bunch of liars when they lied to US about their business deals with Iraq while using their objection to the war as a cover story?
I know all about that. They should listen because France & Germany are right. It wasn't a liberation it was an invasion. Let's watch as the US and Britain plunder Iraq shall we?
The gassing of Kurds, Iranians and Iraqis by 'Chemical Ali' and his goons.
We hate the Iranians, we even helped gas them. Those were US helicopters that sprayed the chemicals. Helicopters we sold Iraq and satalite photos we provided. Btw, Chemical Ali was a bad man. I never supported Saddam, I even said he killed 200k. He was a bad guy, but he was the excuse to invade so we could plunder Iraq. Btw, all these gassings happened during the Iraq/Iran war. He gassed his enemy's not his people.
The starvation and murder of innocent Iraqi men women and children.
The fact that the UN and America are feeding and clothing these starved people as we speak, and that many food stashes belonging Saddam's bullies are now being used to feed the people. Does that sound like murder to you?
The fact that a major Ayatollah has told the people of Iraq to NOT stand in the way of the coalition forces...
You lost me. What? UN sanctions killed those kids. Sanctions we imposed.
The fact that Iraq had ample time to comply with the UN resolutions which he constantly mocked and ignored.
Continual violations of the no-Fly Zone by tracking and firing upon US and British warplanes in an area enforced by UN laws.
Saddam terrorizing and invading his neighbors, as well as his people who are all basically scared sh*tless of him and what he would do if they exercised a bit of free thinking.
Propaganda, and the No-Fly Zone is illegal fyi. The US has been bombing the No-Fly Zone ever since it was created.
The fact that under the skin, radical Muslims are radical Muslims, and will continue to exploit the radical branch of their religion to undermine and destroy the west and her followers while using the skirts of the peaceful Islamic community to hide under because the peaceful community is too scared to stand up to them. Talk about human shields.....
You know a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq exists, surely as the Taliban was a group of mixed extremists from many other Mideast and Asian republics (as well as one American a-hole who deserves to die, hi John!) the point is is that extremists can and will cross linguistic and cultural barriers to defeat an enemy.
Look at the chemical stashes that have been found. I suppose they were going to grow a victory garden with all the Mustard gas, Sarin and VX components?
When will people wake up and smell the coffee?
SHow me the link. Seriously. Show it. Those chemical weapons turned out to be bug spray. Why should we not judge all Moslems by the actions of 20 men, but we can invade and destroy two entire countries because of the actions of 20 men?
Terrorism against other people as well as the US is a crime, and I think that Saddam has done more than his share to his neighbors. It's not about oil, it's not about Islam, it's about finally teaching the scholars of terror a lesson they won't forget because they won't be around to see it. Sleep tight boys because we're coming...
Oh, and for the pansy wansie protestors who bitch about innocent civilians, just remember that on 9/11, 3,000 of YOUR countrymen were innocent civilians too.
But that's OK because a majority of you feel we deserved it, right? What if it was YOUR loved one(s) on Sep.11? You'd think differently, wouldn't you?
Was it your loved ones? I cried for two weeks. The pansy protesters cry because it's a war of greed and corruption. 20 men blew up the Twin Towers but instead of arresting them and moving on we lock up 600 suspects in Cuba without charges or trials, attack Afghanistan and overthrow their government, install an oilman to build a pipeline, then attack Iraq and plunder it too. The Vice President is getting rich off terrorism, the President gets his oil and is re-elected, Wolfowitz overthrows another country and his nazi-like views are now official foreign policy. The Patriot Act takes away our freedoms and the American ideal goes down the drain. Meanwhile, patriots who only know what they see on tv cheer it all on and blacklist anyone who doesn't agree. We're proud to be Americans they sing, eventho they act like Nazis and drag America down with them. How many people, Afghan, Iraqi, and American are dead because Bush didn't stop with 20 men?
Greed, plunder and corruption is the reason. Saddam is the excuse. Since Saddam was a bad guy the greed, murder and corruption is ok. It's the lesser of two evils right? Keyword TWO evils.
sunfrog
04-10-03, 11:14 PM
P.s Hey Yoda, can you say something not nice about Bush in this thread? I must have missed it elsewhere.
Seeing as how I'm waiting for answers to questions I asked you months ago, I don't feel obliged to jump through even the largest of your hoops. Ditch the borderline trollish persona you've adopted and perhaps I'll be more likely to comply.
The Silver Bullet
04-11-03, 12:05 AM
Bush has a munchin face.
Piddzilla
04-11-03, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Yoda
You get points for going out on a limb with your claims, but you lose them for falling off. You see, if all this is true, my old man will almost certainly be one of those "watched," given his reading habits, and so will I eventually. Better luck with your next wild, speculative assumption, though.
Oh, so you do feel the threat of getting your house searched without a warrent? And it's ok by you? Then I guess it's just a matter of different opinions about tolerance with authorities and about how public you want your private life to be.
If you haven't heard me criticize Bush, then you haven't been listening. If you're not hearing these things, it's because you'd simply rather not, as they interfere with your generalization. It's easier to throw a blanket over what I say than it is to explain which rights are being violated (I've asked about this several times without response), or how Bush's tax break plans are at all unfair.
About the tax thing, I did post a respond about it, but it disappeared when I clicked "done" and since I spent a lot of time writing it I haven't found the energy or inspiration to rewrite it. But to put it short, the tax cut is unfair because in the end it leaves the poor with less money since the tax cut has to be financed with cuts in the social sector, while the rich get richer. You say it's fair, but what you really mean is that it's logical since this tax cut is very simple: the more money you have, the larger amount of tax you pay, and the more money you gain in case of a tax cut. That is very simple and logical but it doesn't mean that it's fair. It does nothing to the injustices in society, it only makes the gaps wider. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you think it fills the gaps?
And, no, probably I haven't been listening because in none of the topics you've posted in that I have actually read, there is not one criticizing word about Bush. And that's ok, only that I feel like I always know what your opinion is going to be on a matter before you've stated your opinion. Like with this Patriot Act...
About the rights. If you have the right to get a book from the library without anyone but the library registrating the loan, and then you lose that right. Are you saying that that right hasn't been taken away from you? And I still don't know exactly what kind of rights you're talking about. You make it sound like I'm ignoring your question. Yoda, I didn't understand your question, and I even told you that and asked you what rights you meant. I think I have the right to a personal integrity without any agency having the authority to violate that integrity without me being accused of any crime. If I lived in USA I would feel humiliated and threatened by these Patriot Acts and that I had lost the right to a personal integrity, the right to a private life. What part don't you understand? What am I throwing a blanket over?
This isn't good for my own security. Thank God what you're describing isn't at all what's happening. Contrary to nonsensical belief, the sky ain't exactly falling when the FBI knows I checked The Sword of the Prophet out of the local library.
You don't agree that these Patriot Acts have taken you further away from democracy rather than closer to it?? You think your individual freedom and right to a private life have grown since these Acts??
Let's see, you've used vast amounts of conjecture to construct a vague sort of personal attack on my credibility, ignored my questions, and adopted a hyperbolic Chicken Little philosophy to domestic wire taps. Exaggeration follows desperation...and though it doesn't rhyme, so do personal attacks, direct or hazy.
If I'm desperate it's because I'm frustrated. It's easy to get rethorically birlliant responds from you, but impossible to get a straigth answer. If you feel personally attacked I'm truly sorry. I don't know in what way I was being offensive but if I was I didn't mean to.
I just don't see the good parts about the Patriot Acts and you still haven't pointed them out for me - only that they aren't violating any rights.
sunfrog
04-12-03, 07:29 PM
Come on Yoda, pleease? If you say something bad about Bush I'll apollogize for saying you're wrong about everything.
sunfrog
04-15-03, 12:08 AM
For whoever said the Iraqis rejoycing in the square makes everything worth it. It was faked, wheee!
statue (http://162.42.211.226/article2842.htm)
more statue (http://162.42.211.226/article2838.htm)
Be sure to watch the movie where it says "A wide angle shot in which you can see the whole of Fardus Square (conveniently located just opposite the Palestine Hotel ' on the more statue page. You can hear & see a tank pulling it down.
:rolleyes: I'm starting to think you'll believe anything if it appears to fit your ideology.
Maybe you were watching something else, but the news I saw mentioned quite opnely that a tank was helping to pull the statue down. It's not a secret, bud, nor does it particularly matter.
The al Jazeera coverage made it perfectly clear that the Iraqis were overjoyed at the fall of the statue. This wasn't just the Fox news network. You can't fake emotion like that, anyway.
Caitlyn
04-15-03, 03:15 AM
Strange… I copied that photo and blew it up… and for the life of me, I can’t seem to find a statue of Saddam in it anywhere… anyone else see it...
sunfrog
04-15-03, 03:28 AM
Why doesn't anyone follow my links?
They flew in those overjoyed Iraqis so they could be overjoyed in front of the camera. And Fox said it was the Iraqis on their own pulling the statue down. Also look at how empty the square is, hardly the entire country rejoicing.
It matters because it shows that the liberation is a sham. It's what Bush wants you to believe. Remember how no one knew why we were at war till the tv called it Operation Iraqi Freedom? Now we get all these fake news reports and crap and everyone is behind it.
You can fake any emotion, don't you go to the movies? Once I was an extra in a music video and we had to dance around outside like it was a party. It was pretty easy.
What do you mean I'll believe anything? There's the proof in those pictures. It was faked.
sunfrog
04-15-03, 03:48 AM
try this (http://www.time.com/time/potw/20030411/)
the crowd is pretty sparse.
Sir Toose
04-15-03, 10:22 AM
http://www.poconorecord.com/report/wtc/images/smoke_face.jpg
See that? Well since Islam calls the US "Great Satan" and most ( :D )of the world calls Bush "Satan in the Flesh" then this is proof that George W. Bush is responsible for the events of 9/11.
It has his fingerprint on it... it's irrefutable.
The Silver Bullet
04-15-03, 11:10 AM
A saw a dead penguin at a zoo once. It meant I was to lose my virginity three years later. And you know what?
It happened.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
Oh, so you do feel the threat of getting your house searched without a warrent? And it's ok by you? Then I guess it's just a matter of different opinions about tolerance with authorities and about how public you want your private life to be.
I don't want my private life public at all. I could easily turn this around and say that it's all a matter of how difficult you want it to be for law enforcement to catch criminals. There are two sides to this coin, and the best solution involves a balancing act of rights/privacy, and adequate freedom for those in charge to do their job well.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
But to put it short, the tax cut is unfair because in the end it leaves the poor with less money since the tax cut has to be financed with cuts in the social sector, while the rich get richer.
Two things:
1 - That doesn't explain how it's unfair, unless you can show what social programs those are, and why they should exist in the first place.
2 - The "rich getting richer" part is a bit on the misleading side. It almost implies that we're just handing them money, rather than simply taking less.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
You say it's fair, but what you really mean is that it's logical since this tax cut is very simple: the more money you have, the larger amount of tax you pay, and the more money you gain in case of a tax cut. That is very simple and logical but it doesn't mean that it's fair. It does nothing to the injustices in society, it only makes the gaps wider. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you think it fills the gaps?
It fills some gaps, and create others. The more money there is to be made in poverty, the less people will dread being poor. Similarly, if you keep less and less of the money you make when making more, you have less incentive to continue working your way up. This is the entire basis for capitalism: motivation through financial incentive. It's why communism doesn't work, and why our system does.
Furthermore, to borrow your phrasing, just because it seems logical to feel the gaps, it doesn't mean it's fair to do so. Every dollar you take from a wealthy person is a dollar they earned (setting aside the odd criminal here or there). You look at the situation and think it only natural to serve as a governmental Robin Hood, but in the end I think you forget that people do not cease to have a right to their money just because they're able to make a lot of it.
I don't see your claims working properly under any standard -- basic rights, logic, OR "fairness," as you put it. What exactly is fair about forcing people to pay for each other's things?
Originally posted by Piddzilla
And, no, probably I haven't been listening because in none of the topics you've posted in that I have actually read, there is not one criticizing word about Bush. And that's ok, only that I feel like I always know what your opinion is going to be on a matter before you've stated your opinion. Like with this Patriot Act...
Uh, so? I knew you'd hate it. And I know you'll disagree with virtually everything in this post. What's your point?
Originally posted by Piddzilla
About the rights. If you have the right to get a book from the library without anyone but the library registrating the loan, and then you lose that right. Are you saying that that right hasn't been taken away from you? And I still don't know exactly what kind of rights you're talking about. You make it sound like I'm ignoring your question. Yoda, I didn't understand your question, and I even told you that and asked you what rights you meant. I think I have the right to a personal integrity without any agency having the authority to violate that integrity without me being accused of any crime. If I lived in USA I would feel humiliated and threatened by these Patriot Acts and that I had lost the right to a personal integrity, the right to a private life. What part don't you understand? What am I throwing a blanket over?
At no time did the Bill of Rights tell you that you had the right to check a book out of the library free from prying eyes. Not once. You know why? Because it's not an essential human right, and there are times where, conceivably, it would have to be reasonably violated. So it wasn't made a basic right in the first place. Just because you could do something at some point, and no one seemed interested in interfering, it doesn't mean you had a "right" to it. A "right" is not just anything you are capable of doing. When I refer to rights, I refer to things, primarily, that you are guaranteed under your system of government.
As for the blanket: it isn't obvious? Sheesh, go back and look at your rant on lack of objectivity/arguments of substance, etc. It was a thinly veiled attempt to discredit basically anything political in nature I might say. In my opinion, it's a bit of a cop-out. You can say I'm wrong, but you can't say I have indefensible, arbitrary positions.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
You don't agree that these Patriot Acts have taken you further away from democracy rather than closer to it?? You think your individual freedom and right to a private life have grown since these Acts??
No, it doesn't lead us away from freedom. In some senses you could say it preserves it, as it's now much easier for our law enforcement to apprehend criminals, terrorists, etc. That's the point. You're not free if you're being terrorized by an outside force day and night. The people in the WTC were not free moments before the first plane hit.
Executive Summary: Freedom is not just our government saying "you can do this," but providing us with an environment under which we can do it.
Furthermore, isn't it interesting how the contention has shifted? No longer are we really arguing about violating rights, but about stepping in the right or wrong direction. In other words: we're light years away from the original hypberolic claims of oppression, dictatorship, police state, etc.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
If I'm desperate it's because I'm frustrated. It's easy to get rethorically birlliant responds from you, but impossible to get a straigth answer. If you feel personally attacked I'm truly sorry. I don't know in what way I was being offensive but if I was I didn't mean to.
I appreciate that, but at the same time, don't agree. You get many straight answers from me. If you don't get a straight answer, it's probably because I wasn't asked a straight question, or because there's no truly simple answer to begin with. Ask a simple, straightforward question anytime you like and I'll gladly answer it. Any time.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
I just don't see the good parts about the Patriot Acts and you still haven't pointed them out for me - only that they aren't violating any rights.
Good parts: increased flexibility for catching troublemakers (to use an unusually lenient description). I pointed out that they weren't violating any rights, first and foremost, because that's a very widespread misconception, and I have the impression that you took to it.
sunfrog
04-15-03, 06:24 PM
Revelations
[2] And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
[3] And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
[4] And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
[5] And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
[6] And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
[7] And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
That's Bushlite and 9/11
[11] And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
[12] And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
[13] And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
[14] And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
And that's Blair. :D
Sir Toose
04-15-03, 06:44 PM
I dunno Sunny... you're suddenly giving Bush the power of eloquent speech?
You know, you have to pick one: either Bush is evil, or stupid. He can't be diabolically retarded.
The Silver Bullet
04-16-03, 06:12 AM
Sure he can. Uday is.
Caitlyn
04-16-03, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Sunfrog
It wasn't a liberation it was an invasion.
You know… I don’t think I’ve ever read about a country being liberated by another country where some kind of invasion wasn’t necessary to accomplish the liberation…
We hate the Iranians, we even helped gas them. Those were US helicopters that sprayed the chemicals. Helicopters we sold Iraq and satalite photos we provided.
It is public knowledge about the satellite photos, but would you please post your source for the sale of the helicopters… It is my understanding that the helicopters were “American” in outer design only and they were actually purchased from a helicopter manufacturing company in the early 80’s called Augsta owned by the Italian government that the Pentagon also had a contract with at the time… Or are you talking about 45 civilian helicopters purchased by Iraq directly from Bell in the US … the ones that Saddam hired a Chilean arms manufacturer to refit for military use after they arrived in Iraq?
Btw, Chemical Ali was a bad man. I never supported Saddam, I even said he killed 200k. He was a bad guy, but he was the excuse to invade so we could plunder Iraq. Btw, all these gassings happened during the Iraq/Iran war. He gassed his enemy's not his people.
The Kurds Saddam massacred in Northern Iraq between 1983 and 1988, including the ones he used poisonous gas on at Halabja, Iraq in March of 1988, were Iraqi citizens… mainly civilians and mostly women and children…so they were Saddam’s people…Maybe you should check out the history of the Kurds in Iraq…
You lost me. What? UN sanctions killed those kids. Sanctions we imposed.
Last year alone, the UN allotted 14 billion dollars to Iraq for food and medicine which is considerably more then the health and welfare budgets of the governments of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, or Iran… to name a few… I think if you can find Saddam, you should ask him why he didn’t order any food or medicine for his people and why he was exporting food and medicine, including baby milk, out of Iraq instead of giving it to his people… You might also ask him why he felt the need to order 130 switches for Lithotripters machines (they zap kidney stones) when there was only 6 of the machines even in Iraq… I don’t suppose the fact that the switches can also double as nuclear bomb detonators had anything to do with his order…Oh, and btw, he used money out of his medicine account to purchase them from Germany… the bottom line is that Saddam Hussein could have alleviated his people’s suffering but instead he chose to play politics with their lives and horde the majority of the food and medicine he did purchase for himself and his henchmen…
Propaganda, and the No-Fly Zone is illegal fyi. The US has been bombing the No-Fly Zone ever since it was created.
I have read all those accusations myself but since the no fly zone put a halt to Saddam Hussein practicing genocide against the Kurds and Shi’ite Muslims… I don’t really care if it was legal or not… it was about time someone did something but apparently the legalities of it all are more important to some people then saving human lives…
Sir Toose
04-16-03, 03:06 PM
Have I ever said I love it when she does that?
Yes. And you're not alone.
Concerning the sanctions: you can't have it both ways. You can't decry war, but then decry the alternative (containment) as well. Welcome to the real world: death on all sides.
Sir Toose
04-16-03, 03:52 PM
That's precisely what bugs me about the left. They bitch and moan about everything yet fail to offer alternatives.
They'll never admit they don't have any better ideas.
sunfrog
04-16-03, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Caitlyn
You know… I don’t think I’ve ever read about a country being liberated by another country where some kind of invasion wasn’t necessary to accomplish the liberation…
Invasion, occupation, conquest, you know what I mean. War for the sake of plunder.
Or are you talking about 45 civilian helicopters purchased by Iraq directly from Bell in the US … the ones that Saddam hired a Chilean arms manufacturer to refit for military use after they arrived in Iraq?
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. Defender (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7252/md500.htm)
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.
December 20, 1983 Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.
The Kurds Saddam massacred in Northern Iraq between 1983 and 1988, including the ones he used poisonous gas on at Halabja, Iraq in March of 1988, were Iraqi citizens… mainly civilians and mostly women and children…so they were Saddam’s people…Maybe you should check out the history of the Kurds in Iraq…
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. ]More (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-08.htm)
Last year alone, the UN allotted 14 billion dollars to Iraq for food and medicine which is considerably more then the health and welfare budgets of the governments of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, or Iran… to name a few<SNIP>Lithotripters machines (they zap kidney stones) when there was only 6 of the machines even in Iraq… I don’t suppose the fact that the switches can also double as nuclear bomb detonators had anything to do with his order…Oh, and btw, he used money out of his medicine account to purchase them from Germany… the bottom line is that Saddam Hussein could have alleviated his people’s suffering but instead he chose to play politics with their lives and horde the majority of the food and medicine he did purchase for himself and his henchmen…
British officials said the list of companies appeared to be accurate. Eighty German firms and 24 US companies are reported to have supplied Iraq with equipment and know-how for its weapons programs from 1975 onwards and in some cases support for Baghdad's conventional arms program had continued until last year.
It is not known who leaked the report, but it could have come from Iraq. Baghdad is keen to embarrass the US and its allies by showing the close involvement of US, German, British and French firms in helping Iraq develop its weapons of mass destruction when the country was a bulwark against the much feared spread of Iranian revolutionary fervor to the Arab world.
The list contained the names of long-established German firms such as Siemens as well as US multinationals. With (German) government approval, Siemens exported machines used to eliminate kidney stones which have a "dual use" high precision switch used to detonate nuclear bombs. Ten French companies were also named along with a number of Swiss and Chinese firms. The newspaper said a number of British companies were cited, but did not name them. More (http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/121802_leaked_report_says_german_and_us.htm)
When did he get his Lithotripters? And btw, that says UN not US. You'd think that after 6 years and say 250K deaths the US would figure out they need to review the sanctions to see if they're working, not let it go on for another 6 years and 250k more civillian deaths, no?
I don’t really care if it was legal or not…
I hear that a lot from pro-war people, I know this is wrong, I know that is wrong but I don't care. Wee wee wee, no one cares about right or wrong, we just want war! Yay war!
Originally posted by sunfrog
I hear that a lot from pro-war people, I know this is wrong, I know that is wrong but I don't care. Wee wee wee, no one cares about right or wrong, we just want war! Yay war!
Did you even READ what she said? You've got it completely backwards. You've utterly misrepresented her statement. She's not saying "I know this is wrong, but I don't care." She's saying "I know this is ILLEGAL, but I don't care, because to let it go on would be wrong."
To the contrary, it is YOU that is ignoring the real right and wrong of the matter, focusing on legalities and Bush's proposed justifications, and constantly avoiding the crux of the issue: are we doing good, or not? You focus on political motivation, but not the actual results of the action. I've said it a number of times, and you haven't addressed it, which tells me all I need to know. If there's one thing I know about you, it's that when you know someone's got your number, you go silent.
sunfrog
04-17-03, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by Caitlyn
I have read all those accusations myself but since the no fly zone put a halt to Saddam Hussein practicing genocide against the Kurds and Shi’ite Muslims… I don’t really care if it was legal or not… it was about time someone did something but apparently the legalities of it all are more important to some people then saving human lives…
You'r right Yoda, let me address it again. I hear a lot of people saying I don't care if it's legal or not. And you you just said it again, are we doing right or wrong. Pretty much the ends justify the means.
are we doing good, or not? You focus on political motivation, but not the actual results of the action. I've said it a number of times, and you haven't addressed it
No we're not. We've killed more Iraqis than Saddam. We killed a shi*load of people in Afghanistan. We're barely plundering Afghanistan because there's not much there yet. It's been bombed by the USSR and US and again by the US. And we're about to plunder Iraq. We may attack Sryia too, or someone else and kill more people. The 20 terrorist that blew up the Twin Towers in 2001 are in jail. Enough already! That's just the present. If your bloodlust isn't filled yet look at pictures of dead people, there's enough to last you a lifetime, don't cry when they show them on tv.
sunfrog
04-17-03, 04:22 AM
And another thing..
http://exoticpets.about.com/library/photogallery/MYGIRLYOLANDA002.jpg
Bushlite wants to kill this baby pig as a satanic sacrifice.
Don't let him! Baby pig is USDA!
Do not re-elect G Bush.
This pig is cute!
The Silver Bullet
04-17-03, 04:48 AM
The pig is so not an argument for anything, man...
Sir Toose
04-17-03, 09:50 AM
It's a pig for pig's sake.
I like it.
Here's a moose:
http://whyfiles.org/shorties/069predator_prey/images/moose.jpg
Piddzilla
04-17-03, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Yoda
I don't want my private life public at all. I could easily turn this around and say that it's all a matter of how difficult you want it to be for law enforcement to catch criminals. There are two sides to this coin, and the best solution involves a balancing act of rights/privacy, and adequate freedom for those in charge to do their job well.
Yes, and I don't think it's balanced. This allows the authorities to make non-criminals look like criminals just because they happen to know the wrong guy, or have been walking in a peace demonstration, or because they are members of a radical organisation. I think it's possible that we in the future will see people that can't get certain jobs because the employer runs a check up on them and discovers that their names are to be found in a whole lot of different not-so-good files. I also think that a lot of people will be afraid to speak their out their minds in public out of fear of having their names registered in those files, or to get in all sorts of trouble with all sorts of authorities and agencies.
Two things:
1 - That doesn't explain how it's unfair, unless you can show what social programs those are, and why they should exist in the first place.
2 - The "rich getting richer" part is a bit on the misleading side. It almost implies that we're just handing them money, rather than simply taking less.
1 - I think it's pretty obvious that when you decrease the country's income through a tax cut plus fight a war that costs around $70 billion that the public sector will take heavy blows. They should exist because they give struggling people hope of a way out of poverty.
2 - I don't think it's misleading because it is true. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. It doesn't matter how you put it in words - that's a fact.
It fills some gaps, and create others. The more money there is to be made in poverty, the less people will dread being poor. Similarly, if you keep less and less of the money you make when making more, you have less incentive to continue working your way up. This is the entire basis for capitalism: motivation through financial incentive. It's why communism doesn't work, and why our system does.
http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/poverty/human_poverty_index.htm
I guess it doesn't work as well on all levels. How come that in a country that more than any other country in the industrial world motivates its population through financial incentive still has the biggest percentage of poor people compared to the total population?
I live in a capitalistic country too, you know, and people are motivated through financial incentive here too. But that doesn't mean we can't feel sympathy and solidarity with all of our countrymen. Capitalism is a necessity in a democratic society. Without it you can't be free. Hypercaptialsim where money ALWAYS controls EVERYTHING is not preferable though.
I think this paragraph written by you and that I've just quoted is totally alienated from reality. You can't make any money in poverty because there isn't any money to be made from it. Do you really think that people live in poverty because it's comfortable and profitable, and that poor people wouldn't rather be doing something else? What about children that are being born into poverty? Why shouldn't they be allowed to have at least almost the same chance as kids in better off families?
Furthermore, to borrow your phrasing, just because it seems logical to feel the gaps, it doesn't mean it's fair to do so. Every dollar you take from a wealthy person is a dollar they earned (setting aside the odd criminal here or there). You look at the situation and think it only natural to serve as a governmental Robin Hood, but in the end I think you forget that people do not cease to have a right to their money just because they're able to make a lot of it.
As I think I've said before: You consider paying tax is like being exposed to theft. I don't. I think tax is a good thing and that those who have a lot should give more than those who have less. I feel good about my tax money (hopefully) doing some good for others that have nothing. Sure, some freeloaders will always exploit the system, but I accept that. I don't understand this greed that some people develop the richer they get. I have never met a person that wasn't rich after paying his tax just as he was rich before paying it. It's allright ot go to another country fighting for America and the freedom of the americans and to liberate the iraqi people, but it's not okay to help poor americans to liberate themselves from poverty?
I don't see your claims working properly under any standard -- basic rights, logic, OR "fairness," as you put it. What exactly is fair about forcing people to pay for each other's things?
I thought you were religious, Yoda. Didn't Jesus preach that the rich should give to the poor, or something?
They way I interpret your words I get the impression that you think the most fair thing would be to just abolish ALL taxes.
I think it's great if we all could live in a world where no one had to worry about getting sick, or getting old, or that their kids wouldn't be able to get proper education because of lack of money. Yes, it's utopia, but it's worth fighting for. You make it sound like when you pay your income tax, you buy that homeless bum on the corner a Mercedes Benz. It doesn't work like that in this "socialistic paradise" :rolleyes: that I live in, and I'm absolutely certain that it doesn't work like that in America either.
You know, you and I have completely different views on what is right and what is wrong. I don't share your, in my opinion, egoistic values and I think we just will have to agree on that we disagree on this one.
Uh, so? I knew you'd hate it. And I know you'll disagree with virtually everything in this post. What's your point?
Mainly that you never ever criticize Bush which makes your posts predictable and subjective. I voted for the party that our prime minister represents, and I would do it again today if it was election day. But I can give you a list of things that I think is wrong with him as a prime minister or of things I think is wrong with their politics. Maybe not a very VERY long list - but I could still make a list.
At no time did the Bill of Rights tell you that you had the right to check a book out of the library free from prying eyes. Not once. You know why? Because it's not an essential human right, and there are times where, conceivably, it would have to be reasonably violated. So it wasn't made a basic right in the first place. Just because you could do something at some point, and no one seemed interested in interfering, it doesn't mean you had a "right" to it. A "right" is not just anything you are capable of doing. When I refer to rights, I refer to things, primarily, that you are guaranteed under your system of government.
Well, the acts are about more things than just the library, and you know it.
When I talk about right, I use the phrase "right" simply in the meaning as in "right or wrong". I think this patriot acts are wrong because it threatens the freedom of the individual. It's McCarthyism all over again. Even Hollywood has begun something similar to blacklists (not the fault of the patriot acts though).
Let me ask you something. If you as an american catches an agent in the act of installing tapping equipment in your house - do you still have the right to shoot him for trespassing??
As for the blanket: it isn't obvious? Sheesh, go back and look at your rant on lack of objectivity/arguments of substance, etc. It was a thinly veiled attempt to discredit basically anything political in nature I might say. In my opinion, it's a bit of a cop-out. You can say I'm wrong, but you can't say I have indefensible, arbitrary positions.
Actually, you're right about this. Maybe it's just that I have never met anyone that agrees 100% with a politician or political leader or political ideology before. I guess I find it easier to take arguments seriously when I know that the one delivering them also can admit the flaws of what he's arguing for. But if he sincerly believes that there are no flaws, then there are naturally no flaws to admit. My apologies.
No, it doesn't lead us away from freedom. In some senses you could say it preserves it, as it's now much easier for our law enforcement to apprehend criminals, terrorists, etc. That's the point. You're not free if you're being terrorized by an outside force day and night. The people in the WTC were not free moments before the first plane hit.
Day and night?
How do you mean they weren't free?
It preserves the freedom of SOME americans, yes. But it doesn't preserve the freedom and security of ALL americans. On the contrary, I think it will make life more difficult for those americans allready struggling against poverty or injustice. But this is another issue where we'll have to agree on disagreement. The future will tell.
Executive Summary: Freedom is not just our government saying "you can do this," but providing us with an environment under which we can do it.
Furthermore, isn't it interesting how the contention has shifted? No longer are we really arguing about violating rights, but about stepping in the right or wrong direction. In other words: we're light years away from the original hypberolic claims of oppression, dictatorship, police state, etc.
I found these other things interesting and meaningful to the subject too, but, fine. I still think the acts bring USA back half a century to the days of Joe McCarthy and the hunt for people devoted to "unamerican activities". Even if it wasn't technically a police state, I still think it pretty much shares the political climate of a police state.
I appreciate that, but at the same time, don't agree. You get many straight answers from me. If you don't get a straight answer, it's probably because I wasn't asked a straight question, or because there's no truly simple answer to begin with. Ask a simple, straightforward question anytime you like and I'll gladly answer it. Any time.
Well, I'm just confused over the fact that whatever it is you and I argue about, in the end it always more about "getting the other one" for condradicting himself because of a somewhat unwise choice of words than it is about the real issue.
Good parts: increased flexibility for catching troublemakers (to use an unusually lenient description). I pointed out that they weren't violating any rights, first and foremost, because that's a very widespread misconception, and I have the impression that you took to it.
No, I didn't. I just think it's dead wrong.
Troublemakers. Does that include peace protesters? Inviromental activists? Radical journalists? Journalists and reporters criticizing the government? Nation of Islam? Someone knowing someone in Nation of Islam? Someone being married to a muslim? Someone sleeping with an arab supporting the "palestinian cause"? Socialists? Atheists? Frenchmen :eek: ? Oliver Stone? Spike Lee? Sean Penn? MICHAEL MOORE :eek: :eek: :eek: ? Members of Amnesty International? Members of Greenpeace?
I mean, there is a very big possiblility that people like this have been associating with persons that in some way or another are connected to people or organisations that are being regarded as potential terrorists. And also without even knowing it. Is this enough to end up in the files?
That's a really excellent post. I think I "get" where the core disagreements lie moreso than before. I'll try to give you a nice, detailed response tonight.
Piddzilla
04-17-03, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Yoda
That's a really excellent post. I think I "get" where the core disagreements lie moreso than before. I'll try to give you a nice, detailed response tonight.
:confused: Hmmmmm.... Either this is a trick or you just got laid. :D ;)
Anyway, thanks for saying that, man. I appreciate it.
sunfrog
04-17-03, 06:18 PM
Toose is right. It's just a pig but that baby pig is so darn cute. I can't think of anything else. Except maybe that moose. Is he looking at baby pig? What is he thinking about baby pig? Maybe he's wondering why baby pig is eating a chair cushion instead of grass. Hhhmm..
sunfrog
04-19-03, 05:07 AM
How do you think we'll keep out terrorist?
Have you thought about it? It's hard. Here's some choices to start you off.
A. Kill all the terrorist on the planet including homegrown ones
B. Kick everyone out of America that isn't white
C. Have some kind of George Orwellian thing all over the world
D. Outlaw all weapons except for military and police officers, that means ending all private sales and shutting down all gun shops etc... 30 day waiting for explosives and chemicals whilst you and your property are checked for safety
E. National Guard and other armed forces always postitioned at landmarks, hotels, airports etc.. forever
F. Implant a tracking device into every man wonam and child or some other invention
G. Other
Imagine you have a budget of 100 zillion dollars. How would you do it?
The Silver Bullet
04-19-03, 05:51 AM
I think that the Orwell thing is what is going to happen, and not only in terms of terrorism. We aren't far of 1984 as is, and my guess is that it will only get worse. The worse part is that I think many people are either indifferent or oblivious to this removal of their rights.
Piddzilla
04-19-03, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by sunfrog
D. Outlaw all weapons except for military and police officers, that means ending all private sales and shutting down all gun shops etc... 30 day waiting for explosives and chemicals whilst you and your property are checked for safety
This one isn't so bad, is it?
sunfrog
04-20-03, 02:55 AM
That's it? Two replies? It's hard huh? More replies please.
Why would it be "hard" to reply to your exaggerated list of options? People aren't replying because there's no way to adequately reply to hyperbolic conjecture.
sunfrog
04-20-03, 03:16 AM
I said G. other
I't's just a question not an arguement. I think we'd have a better chance of winning the war on drugs. I have no idea how to stop drugs or terrorism. Does anyone have ideas?
Originally posted by Piddzilla
This one isn't so bad, is it?
You're not serious, are you?
If a police officer has a gun, then I should be allowed to have one too. I don't like the idea that someone's going to tell me I can't buy firearms.
Sun: we'll never win the war on drugs. Now that, my friend, is an unjust war.
Caitlyn
04-21-03, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by Sunfrog
I said G. other
I't's just a question not an arguement. I think we'd have a better chance of winning the war on drugs. I have no idea how to stop drugs or terrorism. Does anyone have ideas?
There are no easy answers to stopping terrorism because there will always be some nut case out there who has no more regard for human life then they do a bug… but in order to hopefully stop future terrorist attacks, the CIA and FBI have to have the reins that held them during the Clinton administration loosened… A lot of people aren’t even aware of some of the changes that took place in those agencies during that time and how political correctness took the place of national security…
Originally posted by Steve
You're not serious, are you?
If a police officer has a gun, then I should be allowed to have one too. I don't like the idea that someone's going to tell me I can't buy firearms.
I agree… you can outlaw guns and explosives all day long but criminals will still be able to get their hands on them… and responsible people deserve the right to protect themselves and their property... the police can not be everywhere at once…
sunfrog
04-21-03, 03:34 AM
Hmm.. so what about Homeland Security and all that? Do you think it was a knee jerk reaction? Do you think it is good? It sounds Orwellian to me. I don't like it, I think it will lead to all sorts of bad things and it won't work anyway. I think the president should just chill.
A lot of people aren’t even aware of some of the changes that took place in those agencies during that time and how political correctness took the place of national security…
And I'm one of them. :) What happened?
Caitlyn
04-21-03, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by sunfrog
Hmm.. so what about Homeland Security and all that? Do you think it was a knee jerk reaction? Do you think it is good? It sounds Orwellian to me. I don't like it, I think it will lead to all sorts of bad things and it won't work anyway. I think the president should just chill.
A President “chilling” is what got us into some of this mess in the first place…and no, I am not totally anti-Clinton but he screwed up big time in more areas then the obvious. But to answer your question, Homeland Security is still a relatively new agency and has yet to be tested under fire so to speak… but had there been a similar agency in place on 9/11 at least the Red/Orange warnings might have saved a few lives…. You are aware that before the second tower was hit the people inside were told to stay at their desks because it never dawned on any of the higher ups it might be anything other then an accident…
And I'm one of them. :) What happened?
Under Clinton’s administration the CIA and FBI were both downsized… not to mention the military and weapons at hand... but anyway the CIA and FBI were basically cleansed of many members who dealt with terrorist groups and many of the remaining agents were told to focus on issues like EPA instead of looking for unsavory characters hatching plots against the US. The few who were allowed to look for the bad guys had their hands tied by so much red tape that they basically were not allowed to do anything without some Congress man's approval and many of them quit in disgust because they didn’t want to be held responsible if something did happen. The requirements for spies was raised so high you just about had to be in the clergy to qualify so many of the spies who had infiltrated various terrorist cells were ignored or told they were no longer needed… But even with all the obstacles in their way, several CIA agents were able to find out where Osama bin Laden was in 1998 and there was a very time limited window of opportunity to take him out… by the time they got through all the red tape and received the green light from Clinton (who incidentally was unavailable for several hours) the window had closed and Osama had gone on his plotting merry way....
Piddzilla
04-21-03, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Steve
You're not serious, are you?
Yes, I am.
If a police officer has a gun, then I should be allowed to have one too. I don't like the idea that someone's going to tell me I can't buy firearms.
You're basically saying that you want the same rights as police officers have which pretty much would lead to anarchy. If you need firearms to protect you from your own police force, I feel truly sorry for you. And that is said without sarcasm.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
You're basically saying that you want the same rights as police officers have which pretty much would lead to anarchy. If you need firearms to protect you from your own police force, I feel truly sorry for you. And that is said without sarcasm.
What I'm saying is that I don't trust any higher authority with weapons. I'm also saying that no one has any right to tell me what I can buy with my own money. A police force is necessary, but I want the assurance that if the police force gets out of hand I have the right to protect myself.
Gun control is very simple to me. Anyone should be allowed to own a gun, but if the gun is touched by a minor then the parents should be charged with child abuse and prosecuted to the fullest extent. I say tax the guns & raise the punishment levels for owning an unregistered weapon.
Piddzilla
04-21-03, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Steve
What I'm saying is that I don't trust any higher authority with weapons. I'm also saying that no one has any right to tell me what I can buy with my own money. A police force is necessary, but I want the assurance that if the police force gets out of hand I have the right to protect myself.
A perfectly valid point, but I think "easy access" to guns leads to more harm than good. It's really hard for me to debate with you on this issue since we come from different countries with very different laws about guns and ownership and so on. But the thing here seems to be not that you don't trust authorities with weapons, but that you don't trust authorities, period. And this has put you in a situation where you feel so insecure in your own home environment that you feel the need to arm yourself.
Gun control is very simple to me. Anyone should be allowed to own a gun, but if the gun is touched by a minor then the parents should be charged with child abuse and prosecuted to the fullest extent. I say tax the guns & raise the punishment levels for owning an unregistered weapon.
What difference does the punishment make when the child is allready dead? How does tough laws for the parents stop the kid or the burglar from taking the gun? Or even more important, from using it? Gun laws should be focusing on how to prevent the deaths of innocents, not solely on how to punish the perpetrators and the owner of the gun.
For me it is also very simple: less guns = less deaths caused by guns.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
A perfectly valid point, but I think "easy access" to guns leads to more harm than good. It's really hard for me to debate with you on this issue since we come from different countries with very different laws about guns and ownership and so on. But the thing here seems to be not that you don't trust authorities with weapons, but that you don't trust authorities, period. And this has put you in a situation where you feel so insecure in your own home environment that you feel the need to arm yourself.
I guess you're right. I don't trust authorities at all.
I don't have a gun, I don't particularly want one, I just want to be able to buy one if I feel the need for it. If I did feel insecure, I would arm myself. When homeland security kicks in, I'll be of age to buy a weapon, & you better believe I will.
What difference does the punishment make when the child is allready dead? How does tough laws for the parents stop the kid or the burglar from taking the gun? Or even more important, from using it? Gun laws should be focusing on how to prevent the deaths of innocents, not solely on how to punish the perpetrators and the owner of the gun.
Laws like that could prevent parents from leaving the guns around in the first place.
For me it is also very simple: less guns = less deaths caused by guns.
Fair enough, but if I can't trust the NYPD to tell the difference between a wallet and a handgun, I want to be able to protect myself. Guns kill people, regardless of whether they're possessed by those in power. And I don't like the idea of someone in power having weapons when I can't have them myself.
Piddzilla
04-21-03, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Steve
I guess you're right. I don't trust authorities at all.
I don't have a gun, I don't particularly want one, I just want to be able to buy one if I feel the need for it. If I did feel insecure, I would arm myself. When homeland security kicks in, I'll be of age to buy a weapon, & you better believe I will.
I believe you.
Laws like that could prevent parents from leaving the guns around in the first place.
Maybe some real law-abiding parents would when the law was fresh but then it wouldn't make any different. Not to mention those who don't give a **** in the first place. Children shouldn't have to suffer because of irresponsible parents. (Or irresponsible authorities for that matter).
Fair enough, but if I can't trust the NYPD to tell the difference between a wallet and a handgun, I want to be able to protect myself. Guns kill people, regardless of whether they're possessed by those in power. And I don't like the idea of someone in power having weapons when I can't have them myself.
Well, if you have a gun they will shoot you, that's for sure. That's like asking for it. And if you're reaching for your gun - they also have the right to shoot you. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm basing this statement on what I've seen in movies).
I think that in a society of law and order the upholders of that law and order must have some kind of means to do their work and to protect themselves since their job can be dangerous. But I hear what you're saying. I lived in Dublin, Ireland for half a year and there the patroling police officers don't even carry a gun! But I guess that wouldn't work in New York - maybe thanks to the liberal gun-laws.
sunfrog
04-21-03, 07:32 PM
I say tax the guns & raise the punishment levels for owning an unregistered weapon.
I think that's a great idea! Kinda like cars, guns should have titles and every year you have to pay a registration tax. If you sell the gun and don't change the title you have to pay the taxes since it's still in your name. You have 1 week to file the paperwork or you get a fine. If you don't do the paperwork and your gun is used in a crime you get a huge fine and maybe time in jail depending on the circumstances.
To Caitlyn: I dunno, we're at war with a bunch of people at the moment and we have enough men and weapons to win. Cutting military spending hasn't hurt. The soviets aren't a threat anymore and we can easily handle who's left. We have enough nukes to destroy the world too.
As far as the Osama stuff I hadn't heard that. Only that we suspected something and Bushy blew it off. I don't remember too much about it. I'm not sure homeland would have helped unless we already suspected the people who blew up the Twin Towers and we tapped their phone and did an illegal search and stuff. An air marshall would have been a help but I don't think it's realistic to be mad at Clinton for not having that stuff.
Originally posted by sunfrog
To Caitlyn: I dunno, we're at war with a bunch of people at the moment and we have enough men and weapons to win. Cutting military spending hasn't hurt. The soviets aren't a threat anymore and we can easily handle who's left. We have enough nukes to destroy the world too.
I don't think you're hearing her properly. Cutting military spending DID hurt. It's since been increased by -- you guessed it -- Dubya. And Thank God for that, too.
Originally posted by sunfrog
As far as the Osama stuff I hadn't heard that. Only that we suspected something and Bushy blew it off. I don't remember too much about it. I'm not sure homeland would have helped unless we already suspected the people who blew up the Twin Towers and we tapped their phone and did an illegal search and stuff
Huh? What're you talking about?
It's real simple. Honest. CIA = Central Intelligence Agency. Meaning that's where our intelligence comes from. It's the place we'd expect to learn about these things in advance if we were to learn of them at all. It is a line of defense before our actual line of defense. Clinton slashed it like mad. That's all there is to it.
It's like Steinbrenner firing half his scouting department and then trying to figure out why his minor league system isn't churning out any decent prospects.
Better late than never.
Yes, and I don't think it's balanced. This allows the authorities to make non-criminals look like criminals just because they happen to know the wrong guy, or have been walking in a peace demonstration, or because they are members of a radical organisation. I think it's possible that we in the future will see people that can't get certain jobs because the employer runs a check up on them and discovers that their names are to be found in a whole lot of different not-so-good files. I also think that a lot of people will be afraid to speak their out their minds in public out of fear of having their names registered in those files, or to get in all sorts of trouble with all sorts of authorities and agencies.
This would be a good point, if we had any reason to suspect that...
1 - There's anything resembling a governmental blacklist.
2 - That you could be added to this list without just cause.
3 - That this list would be available to the public.
It can't damage your reputation and stop you from getting jobs if it isn't public knowledge.
1 - I think it's pretty obvious that when you decrease the country's income through a tax cut plus fight a war that costs around $70 billion that the public sector will take heavy blows. They should exist because they give struggling people hope of a way out of poverty.
It sounds if you're operating under the assumption that every social program...a) exists to "give struggling people hope of a way out of poverty" or b) does it in a crucial AND effective way. But if that were true, we'd be in much better shape than we are now, as we sink loads of money into all sorts of programs.
It's not as if it's always good to put money into social spending no matter how much is already in there. Are some point it ultimately becomes counterproductive. Every single dollar taken from someone who's earned it and given to someone else
2 - I don't think it's misleading because it is true. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. It doesn't matter how you put it in words - that's a fact.
The "rich getting richer" implies that they make their money and are GIVEN more. That's why it's misleading. In reality they make their money, have large amounts of it taken, and are then given a significant amount back proportional to what was taken. Surely you can see that "the rich getting richer" implies some kind of freebie. But we're not buying Bill Gates a Lexus, here.
The "poor getting poorer" part is worse. How can you possibly get poorer simply because you're not getting as much money back as someone else? If someone hands you $1, and hands me $10, is it anything other than dishonest to say that you were "poorer" as a result?
http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/co...verty_index.htm
I guess it doesn't work as well on all levels.
No, it doesn't. Capitalism can't help it if people eat themselves into an early grave or refuse to pay attention in the classroom, ultimately.
How come that in a country that more than any other country in the industrial world motivates its population through financial incentive still has the biggest percentage of poor people compared to the total population?
It doesn't. The indicator you mentioned listed the following measures: % of people likely to die before the age of 60
% of people whose ability to read and write is far from adequate
proportion of the population with disposable incomes of less than 50% of the medium
proportion of long term unemployed (12 months of more)
As I said above, the first two criteria don't relate to this discussion, economically, at all. The third and fourth are a little more applicable, but represent, if ANYTHING, a gap behind haves and have-nots (with "have-not" really meaning "wealthy by world standards, but not by US standards), and not overall wealth.
Not to mention that we motivate through finance considerably less these days, via our massive social spending. My side has been losing this battle since FDR came into power, and you can see the effects quite clearly.
I live in a capitalistic country too, you know, and people are motivated through financial incentive here too. But that doesn't mean we can't feel sympathy and solidarity with all of our countrymen.
Saying that we shouldn't extract gobs and gobs of money from the more wealthy taxpayers to FORCE them to be charitable towards others is hardly lacking sympathy for one's fellow countrymen. The plain truth of the matter is that with an increase in wealth always comes an increase in charity (see the 80s for an applicable example).
No one's saying it won't help anyone. No one's saying it won't do some good. But hey, if Jerry Lewis came to my house and grabbed $10 out of my wallet to help combat muscular dystrophy, that'd do good, too. That doesn't make it right, though.
Capitalism is a necessity in a democratic society. Without it you can't be free. Hypercaptialsim where money ALWAYS controls EVERYTHING is not preferable though.
If it's fair for you to say that we should have proportional tax cuts and somewhat less in terms of social spending is "money controlling everything," then it's just as fair for me to claim that welfare is communistic. Clearly, both are exaggerated heavily.
I think this paragraph written by you and that I've just quoted is totally alienated from reality. You can't make any money in poverty because there isn't any money to be made from it.
Then what do you call welfare? It is, in fact, money given to those in poverty. It doesn't differentiate between those whose circumstances have made their lives difficult and those whose DECISIONS hav made their lives difficult. Every check handed out via the welfare system disagrees with your assertion that there's no money to be made in being poor.
Allow me to guess your response: "Yeah, okay, so you get paid for being in poverty. But you're still not well off. You're still poor compared to most others so it's hardly a luxurious lifestyle."
In pre-emptive reply, I'll say that that's absolutely true. A life lived off of the US welfare system is still one of relative poverty and it's not particularly pleasant. But you're forgetting the work involved in the alternative. Would you work 40 hours a week to make good money? Probably. What about 80, if it meant twice as much? Probably not. But why? Because work is, well, work. It isn't usually fun -- that's basically why they pay you for it.
Picture these options: 50 hours a week for $500, or 1 hour a week for $50. Believe it or not, a lot of people find the latter just as attractive as the former. Is it really hard to see why? The fact that our safety net has become a hammock doesn't help matters, either.
Do you really think that people live in poverty because it's comfortable and profitable, and that poor people wouldn't rather be doing something else? What about children that are being born into poverty? Why shouldn't they be allowed to have at least almost the same chance as kids in better off families?
Consider the following: a young man is born with some new kind of bone marrow. Weird and unrealistic, sure, but this is little more than an analogy. He cannot live for long without replenishing this marrow somehow, and the only way to obtain it is to fatally extract it from a number of other people.
Now, I could take your last sentence and modify it thusly to fit this hypothetical situation: why shouldn't he be allowed to have almost the same chance as kids without bone marrow problems?
The answer: cost. You don't give people benefits AT ANY COST. You weigh the pros and cons. It is not sensible to say that people are entitled to a financial floor that must be preserved at any cost, because you can quickly use some extreme example like the one above to demonstrate an instance in which the concept doesn't hold. What this tells us is that these benefits are subject to scrutiny...they are a matter of degree.
The difference between you and I, therefore, is also a matter of degree. Neither of us thinks it's nice for people to be poor. And neither of us thinks that we should punish work and reward sloth. We just have different ideas about what lengths you can and should go to to make sure everyone gets this or that. Hardly "detached from reality."
As I think I've said before: You consider paying tax is like being exposed to theft. I don't.
It is not theft. Government is, however, a necessary evil.
Tax is not theft. It's forced charity en masse.
I don't understand this greed that some people develop the richer they get. I have never met a person that wasn't rich after paying his tax just as he was rich before paying it.
Three things:
1 - What you call "greed" others might call wanting what is rightfully theirs. Providing for not just their children, but their children's children. Sometimes this "greed" is what got them rich in the first place.
2 - I don't always understand greed either, but that doesn't make it my place to say they should therefore be forced to part with vast amounts of their money, and villified when they do not.
3 - Anyone who's genuinely rich, yes, is unlikely to stop being rich via taxes. What you might not be taking into account, though, is that taxes stop the wealth before it happens. They don't buy a mansion before taxes and have it taken away when they get a letter from the IRS. In reality, they don't buy it in the first place. It's not that rich people are losing their wealth...it's that people aren't getting the wealth in the first place. It's significantly harder to become wealthy. And it's also significantly harder to become SEMI-wealthy...that is, upper-middle-class.
It's allright ot go to another country fighting for America and the freedom of the americans and to liberate the iraqi people, but it's not okay to help poor americans to liberate themselves from poverty?
Unrelated to this issue, but I'll reply anyway: being too poor to buy a DVD player in America is in no way comparable to being fed into a plastic shredder in Iraq. Our poor are rich compared to many. It is not one's right to have money. It is their right to pursue things like money, and to live, etc. Therefore the Iraqi people are having their most basic of rights violated. Our people are not.
Let's put something into perspective: we're not fighting a real life or death issue in regards to welfare and social spending. We're not trying to make sure everyone gets a shot, as America's founders intended. We're now fighting to make sure everyone gets a shot, and if you didn't make it for one reason or another, that you get another, and another, and another, etc. It's a shame when someone takes a shot at life and ultimately fails in their goals -- but it's not necessarily a horrible injustice.
I thought you were religious, Yoda. Didn't Jesus preach that the rich should give to the poor, or something?
Yep. But He didn't say we should force others to. Big difference. You'll notice Christianity, like the charity it preaches, is VOLUNTARY. I never said I dislike it when the rich give to the poor. I dislike it when the government forces the rich to. And I dislike it when people demonize the rich for not paying QUITE as much to the poor as they did a year ago.
C'mon, man. That was a real stretch. It'd be like me saying "C'mon, Pid, don't you think people should be PAID for their work?"
They way I interpret your words I get the impression that you think the most fair thing would be to just abolish ALL taxes.
That'd be a misinterpretation on your part, then. ;)
You make it sound like when you pay your income tax, you buy that homeless bum on the corner a Mercedes Benz.
I don't think I make it "sound" like that any more than you make it "sound" like Warren Buffet is an a**hole who refuses to give starving children the crumbs of his table.
Mainly that you never ever criticize Bush which makes your posts predictable and subjective.
But I do criticize Bush. Just not on anything major. Because I don't think he's made many, if any, MAJOR mistakes. That's aside from the fact that predictability, even if it reliably existed, doesn't mean I'm wrong. Nor does it make my stance any more subjective than it would be otherwise...or any moreso than yours.
Well, the acts are about more things than just the library, and you know it.
The acts are also about less than national blacklisting, and you know it.
When I talk about right, I use the phrase "right" simply in the meaning as in "right or wrong". I think this patriot acts are wrong because it threatens the freedom of the individual. It's McCarthyism all over again. Even Hollywood has begun something similar to blacklists (not the fault of the patriot acts though).
What I'm saying applies no matter which definition you use, for the most part. And there's a world of difference between a blacklist and a simple boycott.
Let me ask you something. If you as an american catches an agent in the act of installing tapping equipment in your house - do you still have the right to shoot him for trespassing??
That depends. I don't know all the ins and outs of the laws, but I'm pretty sure that, if they have a warrant, no, I'm not allowed to.
Actually, you're right about this. Maybe it's just that I have never met anyone that agrees 100% with a politician or political leader or political ideology before. I guess I find it easier to take arguments seriously when I know that the one delivering them also can admit the flaws of what he's arguing for. But if he sincerly believes that there are no flaws, then there are naturally no flaws to admit. My apologies.
No apology necessary at all. You've been for the most part respectful and that's all I ask for.
I don't think I nor my opinions are flawless. On a purely statistical level it's inevitable. But obviously I can't point out which opinions are the flawed ones, because if I could I'd stop believing in them. In that sense, we all believe our views to be without flaw, on an individual level.
There are definitely flaws, if you want to call them that, in what I'm arguing for. There is no "everybody leaves happy and satisfied" answer.
Day and night?
How do you mean they weren't free?
What I mean is that there's a difference between being allowed to do something, and being able to. Example: it means nothing if the government gives us the "right" to levitate objects with our mind. Similarly, the freedom our government promises is worthless if they defend us so poorly that we're routinely being held hostage or killed in acts of terrorism. Or, put another way: it's not enough for our government to say "well, WE'RE not interfering with your freedom, so our job is done. Fight the criminals and terrorists yourself." They have to take the latter upon themselves to some degree. And things like this are just part of that, IMO.
It can go too far, no doubt. But I don't think it has.
It preserves the freedom of SOME americans, yes. But it doesn't preserve the freedom and security of ALL americans. On the contrary, I think it will make life more difficult for those americans allready struggling against poverty or injustice. But this is another issue where we'll have to agree on disagreement. The future will tell.
If it reduces terrorist attacks, it is indeed preserving the freedom and security of all Americans, overall. It's not just about number of people, but DEGREE of freedom. Example: is it worthwhile if we all give up, say, a very tiny privilege, to save lives? I think so, even though it benefits a few and costs many, the benefit is large and the cost is ultimately small. In short: that's a good deal. Especially when it's only temporary.
The future will indeed tell. Do you honestly think we're going to spiral towards fascism because the FBI peeps at a list of people who've taken out books on building pipe bombs at home?
I found these other things interesting and meaningful to the subject too, but, fine. I still think the acts bring USA back half a century to the days of Joe McCarthy and the hunt for people devoted to "unamerican activities". Even if it wasn't technically a police state, I still think it pretty much shares the political climate of a police state.
Have you ever lived in a police state?
Well, I'm just confused over the fact that whatever it is you and I argue about, in the end it always more about "getting the other one" for condradicting himself because of a somewhat unwise choice of words than it is about the real issue.
I think it's a natural tendency to point out the flaws in what someone of the opposite viewpoint is saying. I know the game you refer to (I call it "playing 'gotcha!'"), and I don't like it. It has some validity, but not much. For what it's worth, I'll try to keep it to a minimum. I think it's just habit/normal impulse.
Troublemakers. Does that include peace protesters? Inviromental activists? Radical journalists? Journalists and reporters criticizing the government? Nation of Islam? Someone knowing someone in Nation of Islam? Someone being married to a muslim? Someone sleeping with an arab supporting the "palestinian cause"? Socialists? Atheists? Frenchmen ? Oliver Stone? Spike Lee? Sean Penn? MICHAEL MOORE :eek: :eek: :eek:? Members of Amnesty International? Members of Greenpeace?
No. But it does include people who exaggerate. :p Your tribunal is next week.
I mean, there is a very big possiblility that people like this have been associating with persons that in some way or another are connected to people or organisations that are being regarded as potential terrorists. And also without even knowing it. Is this enough to end up in the files?
I commented on this above: I don't know exactly what these "files" are supposed to be, nor why we have any reason to suspect that they'll ever be particularly damaging. I also don't think there is a "very big possibility" that this is going to escalate in the way you're implying. I don't think I'll be living in a dictatorship in 50 years, and I don't think you do, either.
And before you ask: yes, I've checked, and this, in fact, my longest post on MoFo. Literally.
r3port3r66
04-21-03, 11:58 PM
No, it doesn't. Capitalism can't help it if people eat themselves into an early grave or refuse to pay attention in the classroom, ultimately.
Yoda my friend, I'm considered a "bleeding-heart" liberal, but my hat's off to you buddy. If people could just embrace or even consider the words in your above quote, there would be less complaining and more constructive action from my side. Ever think of becoming a democrat?
Originally posted by r3port3r66
Ever think of becoming a democrat?
For a few seconds, yeah. :D
Piddzilla
04-22-03, 10:08 AM
Oh man that is long... I'll see when I have time to reply. It's however nice to see that the tone in our arguments has become a little more friendly.... thanks to me. :D
It was a joint venture, damnit. :p
Piddzilla
04-22-03, 01:33 PM
Say, joint??? :dizzy:
sunfrog
04-22-03, 05:09 PM
I don't think you're hearing her properly. Cutting military spending DID hurt. It's since been increased by -- you guessed it -- Dubya. And Thank God for that, too.
How did it hurt? We just beat two countries at the same time. It didn't hurt. The Soviets are nice now. Dumbya probably increased military spending so he can conquer some more places. More stupidity from him.
Now I'll go back and read the big post. :P
I changed my mind. It's too long. You know I have a short attention span. Who helped you write it btw?
I'll just add this. They've reformed welfare. I applied for unemployment 8 months ago and I wasn't elligible because I made $24K the year before and I'm going to school. I couldn't get unemployment because I made too much when I was working and I didn't qualify for Job Service because I was in school. They wanted me to quit school to qualify. Their logic was that if I'm in class all day I can't be out looking for work since I can't be in two places at the same time. Just fyi unemployment benefits run out now after a certain amount of time. You can no longer live off it. Signing up for Job Service is manditory so you have to look for a job to get unemployment. They do offer school programs for people that were laid off but you must have been laid off not quit or been fired. I couldn't get in there because my tuition is already paid. They would have made my loan payments or sent me to an approved school.
Originally posted by sunfrog
How did it hurt? We just beat two countries at the same time. It didn't hurt. The Soviets are nice now. Dumbya probably increased military spending so he can conquer some more places. More stupidity from him.
I already addressed this in my last post. The CIA is the organization from which we get out intelligence. Our intelligence is what determines how efficient we are at fending off, oh, I dunno, terrorist attacks and the like. Know of any recent terrorist attracks we were unable to stop? Sheesh. The concept is so simple that it's almost stupid: cut funding like mad and the performance is clearly going to go down. I've said it, and Cait's said it. What's so hard to understand about it?
What's more: your logic just doesn't work. Just because we won it doesn't mean there was no effect. Hey, someone call the Athletics and tell them that losing 2001 AL MVP Jason Giambi had no effect whatsoever because they won the division anyway. :rolleyes:
And I still don't understand this harping on the Soviets. No one mentioned them but you. Believe it or not there are other reasons to have a strong military than just Soviet aggression.
sunfrog
04-22-03, 05:50 PM
Since when has the CIA been a branch of the military? I'm talking about military spending. How did cutting the military's budget hurt?
What the? He didn't just cut military spending. He cut CIA spending, too. He cut damn near everything relating to defense. It makes no sense whatsoever to somehow isolate military spending as the only spending with any bearing on our defense...but even if you DID, it'd still hurt us. Ben Franklin said it best: lost time is never found again. Military spending is a broad term, and it's often used to describe money budgeted for things like intelligence as well, since the two are so directly related.
You're picking on semantics here.
Sir Toose
04-22-03, 06:00 PM
The CIA and the military both play an active role in the protection of this country. Bottom Line.
We wavered in our ability to protect our citizens and we got caught with our pants down. I blame our elected officials, those that WE elected, for allowing it to happen... whatever their party affiliation.
Shame on us for being so trusting.
BTW, have you ever denounced Saddam or Osama for any wrong doing?
sunfrog
04-22-03, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Yoda
It makes no sense whatsoever to somehow isolate military spending as the only spending with any bearing on our defense...but even if you DID, it'd still hurt us. <SNIP>You're picking on semantics here.
No,lol, here's what I said.
To Caitlyn: I dunno, we're at war with a bunch of people at the moment and we have enough men and weapons to win. Cutting military spending hasn't hurt. The soviets aren't a threat anymore and we can easily handle who's left. We have enough nukes to destroy the world too.
See, I really am talking about military spending not the CIA and not defence spending in general. :D
I keep bringing up the Soviets because they've been the bad guy my entire life. That's why we have a shi*load of weapons and nukes. They're the Empire of Evil remember? Our arch enemy
To Toose: Everyone knows Osama and Saddam are bad. I've said Saddam is bad and has to go on several occasions. I don't think I've said anything about Osama
Sir Toose
04-22-03, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by sunfrog
I don't think I've said anything about Osama
In that case I'm taking away your pig. And putting you in time-out.
Originally posted by sunfrog
See, I really am talking about military spending not the CIA and not defence spending in general. :D
Why would you talk about just military spending? Clinton cut all applicable spending. Bush has raised it.
Originally posted by sunfrog
I keep bringing up the Soviets because they've been the bad guy my entire life.
I was unaware the last dozen years didn't count as part of your "entire life."
Originally posted by sunfrog
That's why we have a shi*load of weapons and nukes. They're the Empire of Evil remember? Our arch enemy
Yeah, that was, like, awhile ago. What's more, as I stated in my last post, we have them for reasons other than Soviet aggression. You're thinking of why we HAD them. The past tense is crucial. The Soviets are not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only reason for us to arm ourselves.
sunfrog
04-24-03, 05:20 PM
After reading your post I don't know what we're talking about any more. :sick:
I said cutting military spending hasn't hurt because the Soviets aren't a threat anymore and we have enough to take care of who's left. Is that what you just said too? I'm talking about military spending because that's what I'm talking about. We wern't talking about the same thing, til your last post. Now we are I think.
When is my time out over?
Military spending encompasses intelligence spending. Even if it didn't, though, it's nothing short of outrageously ignorant to claim that the Soviets are the only reason we'd need a strong military.
sunfrog
04-25-03, 07:21 PM
No it isn't. Unless you're afraid of China. Are you?
Who's as big a threat as the USSR was? No one. Not even N Korea. We have enough men and machines to kill them and more nukes too. Are you afraid the whole world will band together against us? Ar eyou afriad of alien invasion? You over use the word ignorant. We have smaller enemies so we can do with a smaller military. It's logic. You don't have to disagree with everything I say. Join me. We can fight together like brothers!
Originally posted by sunfrog
No it isn't. Unless you're afraid of China. Are you?
Who's as big a threat as the USSR was? No one. Not even N Korea. We have enough men and machines to kill them and more nukes too.
Uh, we have enough to win, yes, but not without great cost. And we have no reason to believe that China or North Korea are lying dormant, either.
Furthermore, you're acting as if we're building our military larger than it was back in the late 80s. I don't know that we are. We're just building it more than it was in the late 90s -- that is, VERY SMALL.
Originally posted by sunfrog
Are you afraid the whole world will band together against us? Ar eyou afriad of alien invasion? You over use the word ignorant.
Sadly, it's a very appropriate word in a lot of these conversations.
Originally posted by sunfrog
You don't have to disagree with everything I say. Join me. We can fight together like brothers!
Uh, everytime I disagree with you is a time you're disagreeing with me, too. It works both ways. Say something reasonable and I'll get behind it. I'm not going to agree with you just for the sake of agreeing with you, though.
Piddzilla
04-26-03, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Yoda
Better late than never.
This would be a good point, if we had any reason to suspect that...
1 - There's anything resembling a governmental blacklist.
2 - That you could be added to this list without just cause.
3 - That this list would be available to the public.
It can't damage your reputation and stop you from getting jobs if it isn't public knowledge.
It might stop you from getting a job within official administrations. The Patriot Act part II will allow people to be listed without being anything else than suspect. No evidence of a criminal act will be needed. In other words, it's up to the ones listing people - not the law - to decide who gets on the list and what for.
It sounds if you're operating under the assumption that every social program...a) exists to "give struggling people hope of a way out of poverty" or b) does it in a crucial AND effective way. But if that were true, we'd be in much better shape than we are now, as we sink loads of money into all sorts of programs.
Well, the programs don't work obviously. So, because of the incompetence of your elected politicians, the disadvantaged people have to suffer even more.
It's not as if it's always good to put money into social spending no matter how much is already in there. Are some point it ultimately becomes counterproductive. Every single dollar taken from someone who's earned it and given to someone else
At some point? You mean you've reached the point where USA has put in so much money in the public sector that it's become counterproductive? Or that you've done that at some point in history and realized it was bad for your country? I don't believe you have ever had an administration (except for FDR) that has done that. And it's not like you put money in one place and think everything will be okay. It's not like you're supposed to give that dollar you've earned in the hand of a poor guy (in the shape of a welfare check). Social programs in my book mean building up an excellent public school system, great public hospitals, health insurances, social security. I think the biggest reason to why we have such problems understanding each other is that I've grown up in a country where school was free, and actually good too, and where I didn't have to pay for going to the dentist once a year up til I was 18. That sort of things. The things that you and your countrymen probably had to pay for all your life. If you have to do that, well, then it's pretty clear that you don't feel an urge to give away your money to pay for others.
The "rich getting richer" implies that they make their money and are GIVEN more. That's why it's misleading. In reality they make their money, have large amounts of it taken, and are then given a significant amount back proportional to what was taken. Surely you can see that "the rich getting richer" implies some kind of freebie. But we're not buying Bill Gates a Lexus, here.
If it's implying anything else than what I'm saying it's that the wealth of the rich is growing. To put it simple, they can buy more stuff for their money without being given a raise. At the same time, the poor can by less stuff for their money in spite of the fact that they have larger amounts of money than before after the taxcut. This is because that something has to finance the taxcut and it will be the public sector, i.e. schools etc. Things that people without a lot of money depend on and need will be more expensive than before and eat up the money they earned because of the taxcut. At the same time minimum wages are - minimum.
The "poor getting poorer" part is worse. How can you possibly get poorer simply because you're not getting as much money back as someone else? If someone hands you $1, and hands me $10, is it anything other than dishonest to say that you were "poorer" as a result?
Oh, that came here.... Well, see what I wrote above...
No, it doesn't. Capitalism can't help it if people eat themselves into an early grave or refuse to pay attention in the classroom, ultimately.
If you're hungry or if your dad's on crack or your mom's whoring maybe it's not that easy to pay attention in class.
It doesn't. The indicator you mentioned listed the following measures: % of people likely to die before the age of 60
% of people whose ability to read and write is far from adequate
proportion of the population with disposable incomes of less than 50% of the medium
proportion of long term unemployed (12 months of more)
As I said above, the first two criteria don't relate to this discussion, economically, at all. The third and fourth are a little more applicable, but represent, if ANYTHING, a gap behind haves and have-nots (with "have-not" really meaning "wealthy by world standards, but not by US standards), and not overall wealth.
Not world standards. Industrial world standards. And, no matter how you put it, USA finished last. What does that tell you?
Not to mention that we motivate through finance considerably less these days, via our massive social spending. My side has been losing this battle since FDR came into power, and you can see the effects quite clearly.
Losing this battle? What about Reagan? And now Bush? And massive social spending by US standards perhaps, but non-existent and incompetent social spending by world standards, and yes, one can see the effects quite clearly.
Saying that we shouldn't extract gobs and gobs of money from the more wealthy taxpayers to FORCE them to be charitable towards others is hardly lacking sympathy for one's fellow countrymen. The plain truth of the matter is that with an increase in wealth always comes an increase in charity (see the 80s for an applicable example).
Well, charity is wrong of principle. I'm short of time but will be happy to explain why the next time. The end of the Reagan era also displayed bigger gaps between the lower and upper classes than ever. And he carried out pretty much the same economical politics like Bush. Only not as reactionary as Bush.
No one's saying it won't help anyone. No one's saying it won't do some good. But hey, if Jerry Lewis came to my house and grabbed $10 out of my wallet to help combat muscular dystrophy, that'd do good, too. That doesn't make it right, though.
eeeh... what?
If it's fair for you to say that we should have proportional tax cuts and somewhat less in terms of social spending is "money controlling everything," then it's just as fair for me to claim that welfare is communistic. Clearly, both are exaggerated heavily.
No, it's not. Capitalism practised to its extreme is about the market (i.e. money) having the power. Communism practised to its extreme is about the people (i.e. the workers) owning everything together and that everybody gets paid equally - no matter what kind of job you've got. But if you don't work - you're out. No welfare checks.
Then what do you call welfare? It is, in fact, money given to those in poverty. It doesn't differentiate between those whose circumstances have made their lives difficult and those whose DECISIONS hav made their lives difficult. Every check handed out via the welfare system disagrees with your assertion that there's no money to be made in being poor.
As I've said before, money spent on the public sector shouldn't be in form of welfare checks only. It's about spending it on schools and health care and eldery care and that kind of things. It's not like "Here. Here's some money. You're free to do what you want with it." That's the liberal approach. I think it should be more like guaranteeing great education and a good basic conditions for EVERYBODY. Rich AND poor. Money shouldn't be an issue when it comes to basic needs. AND... it is allowed to be rich, yes.
Allow me to guess your response: "Yeah, okay, so you get paid for being in poverty. But you're still not well off. You're still poor compared to most others so it's hardly a luxurious lifestyle."
:laugh: Not at all. Don't be silly. It's not about making everybody equally rich or poor. It's about erasing injustice when it comes to basic human needs and rights.
In pre-emptive reply, I'll say that that's absolutely true. A life lived off of the US welfare system is still one of relative poverty and it's not particularly pleasant. But you're forgetting the work involved in the alternative. Would you work 40 hours a week to make good money? Probably. What about 80, if it meant twice as much? Probably not. But why? Because work is, well, work. It isn't usually fun -- that's basically why they pay you for it.
Start with rasing minimum wages radically and see if you notice a change.
I know what it's like to be without a job and without money and it sucks donkey ass. I would never ever choose not working for almost no money at all above working 40 hours a week for decent money.
Picture these options: 50 hours a week for $500, or 1 hour a week for $50. Believe it or not, a lot of people find the latter just as attractive as the former. Is it really hard to see why? The fact that our safety net has become a hammock doesn't help matters, either.
What people? Anyone you know? The majority? What would you rather do? Totally cut those people off from society or motivate them to go back to work?
Consider the following: a young man is born with some new kind of bone marrow. Weird and unrealistic, sure, but this is little more than an analogy. He cannot live for long without replenishing this marrow somehow, and the only way to obtain it is to fatally extract it from a number of other people.
Now, I could take your last sentence and modify it thusly to fit this hypothetical situation: why shouldn't he be allowed to have almost the same chance as kids without bone marrow problems?
The answer: cost. You don't give people benefits AT ANY COST. You weigh the pros and cons. It is not sensible to say that people are entitled to a financial floor that must be preserved at any cost, because you can quickly use some extreme example like the one above to demonstrate an instance in which the concept doesn't hold. What this tells us is that these benefits are subject to scrutiny...they are a matter of degree.
The difference between you and I, therefore, is also a matter of degree. Neither of us thinks it's nice for people to be poor. And neither of us thinks that we should punish work and reward sloth. We just have different ideas about what lengths you can and should go to to make sure everyone gets this or that. Hardly "detached from reality."
Nope. The difference is that you think that public spendings equals welfare checks. The larger amounts of public spending, the larger the checks. I think that poor people shouldn't necessarily be given money, but things that help them bring theirselves out of poverty. Like good education and the security of knowing that if you get sick you won't be in debt for the rest of your life or a place to keep your kids for a reasonable sum of money while you're educating yourself or working to support your family.
It is not theft. Government is, however, a necessary evil.
What, you want capitalistic anarchy?
Tax is not theft. It's forced charity en masse.
Well, some people would call that theft too since it's forced.
I will have to respond to the rest later..
Piddzilla
04-28-03, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Yoda
Three things:
1 - What you call "greed" others might call wanting what is rightfully theirs. Providing for not just their children, but their children's children. Sometimes this "greed" is what got them rich in the first place.
Yeah, as I said in my previous post, I understand now that our different views on that is because us growing up in different types of economical systems.
2 - I don't always understand greed either, but that doesn't make it my place to say they should therefore be forced to part with vast amounts of their money, and villified when they do not.
What do you think is the limit for what the income tax should be? What is the "perfect percentage number" according to you? You don't see a risk with cutting public sector spendings since it might lead to increased crime rate - affecting also the upper class in the end - rather than decreased welfare dependence?
3 - Anyone who's genuinely rich, yes, is unlikely to stop being rich via taxes. What you might not be taking into account, though, is that taxes stop the wealth before it happens. They don't buy a mansion before taxes and have it taken away when they get a letter from the IRS. In reality, they don't buy it in the first place. It's not that rich people are losing their wealth...it's that people aren't getting the wealth in the first place. It's significantly harder to become wealthy. And it's also significantly harder to become SEMI-wealthy...that is, upper-middle-class.
Ridiculous. You make it sound like people with high income pay around 75% in tax. But isn't it true that before Bush's tax cut the highest federal personal income tax rate was around 40% for those making the most money? That kind of income tax is not the difference between owning or not owning a mansion.
Unrelated to this issue, but I'll reply anyway: being too poor to buy a DVD player in America is in no way comparable to being fed into a plastic shredder in Iraq. Our poor are rich compared to many. It is not one's right to have money. It is their right to pursue things like money, and to live, etc. Therefore the Iraqi people are having their most basic of rights violated. Our people are not.
It's not unrelated to this issue. I watched CBS 60 minutes the other day whith Clinton and Dole babbling about something. First Clinton spoke and I thought "Jeez, well isn't that obvious??". No, it wasn't. Then Dole spoke and used the war against Iraq as an argument to why unemployment and poverty domestically had to be of secondary intrest - even though it's always of secondary intrest to conservatives. He more or less wanted people that cared more about their own situation than the war to feel guilty and like they were being bad american patriots. Like you are doing now.
And it's pretty obvious that iraqi people were living under circumstances that no one in a democratic country has to put up with. But how would you explain to someone that can't afford to go to the doctor that the freedom of Iraq is more important to his security than a good social security?
Let's put something into perspective: we're not fighting a real life or death issue in regards to welfare and social spending. We're not trying to make sure everyone gets a shot, as America's founders intended. We're now fighting to make sure everyone gets a shot, and if you didn't make it for one reason or another, that you get another, and another, and another, etc. It's a shame when someone takes a shot at life and ultimately fails in their goals -- but it's not necessarily a horrible injustice.
Only being born isn't being given a shot. And because of injustice everybody is not able to take the chance, even if it's out there. It's easy if you have rich parents to take that chance. And if you blow it, get another, another and another. Your president is a perfect example of that.
Yep. But He didn't say we should force others to. Big difference. You'll notice Christianity, like the charity it preaches, is VOLUNTARY. I never said I dislike it when the rich give to the poor. I dislike it when the government forces the rich to.
So, you mean it would be allright if you paid the exact same amount while sitting in a church putting it in as collection for everyone to see? Christianity is voluntary you say. What a load of crap. You're not a christian when it's time for the tax to be collected? What days during the week are you a christian? That was hypocritical.
It is always good to give to those who have less. But charity, as I've said before, is wrong. Charity can never do the job for taxes. Charity is nothing but the rich deciding who amongst the poor should be given alms and who shouldn't. That only strenghten the boundaries between the rich and the poor and leads back to a feudal society. Like everything else conservative - it's anti-progressive and anti-development.
And I dislike it when people demonize the rich for not paying QUITE as much to the poor as they did a year ago.
I understand that you do. Personally, I don't really demonize anyone, but if I was to I would demonize the responsible politicians.
C'mon, man. That was a real stretch. It'd be like me saying "C'mon, Pid, don't you think people should be PAID for their work?"
Well, it was said like a half-joke even though I think it's funny how the christian right uses the words of one of the first true socialists to support their cause.
That'd be a misinterpretation on your part, then. ;)
Because......? You think taxes are good for......?
I don't think I make it "sound" like that any more than you make it "sound" like Warren Buffet is an a**hole who refuses to give starving children the crumbs of his table.
Is that what I sound like to you?
But I do criticize Bush. Just not on anything major. Because I don't think he's made many, if any, MAJOR mistakes. That's aside from the fact that predictability, even if it reliably existed, doesn't mean I'm wrong. Nor does it make my stance any more subjective than it would be otherwise...or any moreso than yours.
Ok, whatever... Fair enough...
The acts are also about less than national blacklisting, and you know it.
What's your point?
What I'm saying applies no matter which definition you use, for the most part. And there's a world of difference between a blacklist and a simple boycott.
That difference being? What's a blacklist? A boycott, no?
That depends. I don't know all the ins and outs of the laws, but I'm pretty sure that, if they have a warrant, no, I'm not allowed to.
The point is, with Patriot Act part II they won't need a warrant. So, knowing that, what's your opinon?
No apology necessary at all. You've been for the most part respectful and that's all I ask for.
You mean, I give you what you want?? Damn!!
I don't think I nor my opinions are flawless. On a purely statistical level it's inevitable. But obviously I can't point out which opinions are the flawed ones, because if I could I'd stop believing in them. In that sense, we all believe our views to be without flaw, on an individual level.
Bringing it back to philosophy class again...
If you argue for the Patriot Act, you could increase your chances to convince someone arguing against the Patriot Act by admitting to the fact that it's not flawless. Because I think you do realize that even if you catch more crooks, it's possible that some innocents have to suffer because of it.
There are definitely flaws, if you want to call them that, in what I'm arguing for. There is no "everybody leaves happy and satisfied" answer.
Right.
What I mean is that there's a difference between being allowed to do something, and being able to. Example: it means nothing if the government gives us the "right" to levitate objects with our mind. Similarly, the freedom our government promises is worthless if they defend us so poorly that we're routinely being held hostage or killed in acts of terrorism. Or, put another way: it's not enough for our government to say "well, WE'RE not interfering with your freedom, so our job is done. Fight the criminals and terrorists yourself." They have to take the latter upon themselves to some degree. And things like this are just part of that, IMO.
It can go too far, no doubt. But I don't think it has.
And what I'm saying is that the freedom is worth less (not worthless) if it means conforming people and society - which Patriot Act part II will lead to.
At least you admit it can go too far just like I can admit that it yet hasn't. But the acts allows it to since it's now in the hands of people who think it can never go too far.
If it reduces terrorist attacks, it is indeed preserving the freedom and security of all Americans, overall. It's not just about number of people, but DEGREE of freedom. Example: is it worthwhile if we all give up, say, a very tiny privilege, to save lives? I think so, even though it benefits a few and costs many, the benefit is large and the cost is ultimately small. In short: that's a good deal. Especially when it's only temporary.
You are talking as USA are constantly under attack. USA is not under attack and hasn't been since 9-11 2001 - almost two years ago. Doesn't that mean that your protection against terrorism has worked 100% since then? Why do you need harder laws? To me this is so obvious. Bush scoring points by demonstarting a resolute and tough style, always making sure that the american people are aware of the outer threat and are afraid of the others. What was up with the gas mask give outs just before the war? Was there a gas alarm? Not that I heard of anyway. It was all about making people believe that they're constantly living in danger and that they need this war to feel safe. But what do the Bush administration do directly after the war is over? Turn to Syria. They need a bad guy.
The future will indeed tell. Do you honestly think we're going to spiral towards fascism because the FBI peeps at a list of people who've taken out books on building pipe bombs at home?
Sprial towards? Yes. Reach it? Most probably not. And not solely because of the reason stated above. If the Patriot Acts are applied only to protect your country from terrorists (i.e. people seriously planning to carry out violent attacks on american civilians and property) and that you can guarantee that they won't be used to take care of elements unconveniant to the dominating ideology, then I won't say anything against it.
Have you ever lived in a police state?
My first impression was to say no. But when I think of it, in the 70's (or early 80's, don't remember exactly) a gigantic scandal was exposed in Sweden. The SÄPO (Security Police) had systematically registered people's political views and especially communists and similar radicals - which led to that some of those registered lost their jobs without knowing why they'd lost it. Sometimes playing in a progressive rock band was enough for being registered. So, yes, in a sense I guess I have been living in a police state without knowing about it.
Have you ever lived in a socialistic country?
I think it's a natural tendency to point out the flaws in what someone of the opposite viewpoint is saying. I know the game you refer to (I call it "playing 'gotcha!'"), and I don't like it. It has some validity, but not much. For what it's worth, I'll try to keep it to a minimum. I think it's just habit/normal impulse.
Uhuh... right right... You love it, sucker. :yup: :laugh:
No. But it does include people who exaggerate. :p Your tribunal is next week.
I was intentionally exaggerating, yes. But at the same time, my suggestions aren't exaggerated or absurd.
I commented on this above: I don't know exactly what these "files" are supposed to be, nor why we have any reason to suspect that they'll ever be particularly damaging. I also don't think there is a "very big possibility" that this is going to escalate in the way you're implying. I don't think I'll be living in a dictatorship in 50 years, and I don't think you do, either.
No, I don't because Bush's ass will be long gone in 50 years. That doesn't mean flirting with undemocratic values is right.
And before you ask: yes, I've checked, and this, in fact, my longest post on MoFo. Literally.
Ha! Amateur! You call 18 742 characters long??? My record is 22 535.
I'll get to the rest in time, but I feel compelled to respond to this right now:
So, you mean it would be allright if you paid the exact same amount while sitting in a church putting it in as collection for everyone to see? Christianity is voluntary you say. What a load of crap. You're not a christian when it's time for the tax to be collected? What days during the week are you a christian? That was hypocritical.
WHAT THE?
I don't think that paragraph makes any sense at all. Christianity is 100% voluntary, as is all its teachings. I didn't advocate tithe as a replacement for taxation, either. I've re-read this paragraph several times and can't for the life of me extract a coherent argument.
This weird attempt to somehow turn my religion against me economically makes no sense whatsoever. You want it both ways: you want Jesus' policy in our government, but if someone dared to name it as such, I'd wager you'd cry foul about the seperation between Church and State.
Just because it's MORALLY RIGHT to give to those less fortunate than yourself, it doesn't mean it should be REQUIRED. It's morally right not to cheat on your spouse, but people are legally allowed to do it, and there are other things which are MORALLY RIGHT which we do not FORCE people to do through the law.
Piddzilla
04-28-03, 01:05 PM
Look, I knew when I wrote it that you would be upset. I don't care about your religion. If I did I would have brought the word of Jesus into the discussion long time ago. Not only because I would have thought it was more important than I do know but also that I probably would know a lot more about his word, enough to debate with you on it.
I said in my post that I made that remark as a half-joke. Don't know if you saw it. But, yes, I think it's hypocritical to say that it's voluntary to give just as it is voluntary to be a christian. God and the bible and the word of Jesus are used constantly to justify a lot of things but only when it suits certain purposes. For God and Country and Crusade and God Bless America are phrases used to rasie the fighting spirit and patriotism among americans. I wonder how often those phrases are heard during meetings about the country's public sector budget.
I don't care if Jesus is in your government (I really don't think it's possible anyway). But wouldn't you agree that the fundaments of the politics of the christian right is based on are the words of the bible?
I made a rather rethorical statement: Didn't Jesus preach that we should give? or something like that... You said that yes, but not that people should be forced to do it. Well, no, but isn't the whole point of christianity to live by the word of Jesus to at least some extent? That's where the hypocrisy lies with religion - not with your taxing system. If you weren't religious, which I know you are, I would never had said it.
You actually promote christianity or religion on other threads as very important and meaningful sources and sometimes even more brilliant than science, but when it's down to basic things like giving to less fortunate people it's just "well, you know... this thing with christianity... it's kind of flexible...", which is reeking of hypocrisy if you ask me AND THAT'S WHY I SAID IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
If you think about it, it was more an attack on religion that it was an attack on your economic politics.
Come on, Yoda. Loosen up!
I'm not, nor was I, upset. Not in the least. I just had no freakin' clue what you were getting at. I do now, though, thanks to this:
You actually promote christianity or religion on other threads as very important and meaningful sources and sometimes even more brilliant than science, but when it's down to basic things like giving to less fortunate people it's just "well, you know... this thing with christianity... it's kind of flexible...", which is reeking of hypocrisy if you ask me AND THAT'S WHY I SAID IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
First off, I never said that Christianity was flexible. What you fail to see is that morality does not equal policy. I think it's good to go to Church -- should I then, by your logic, support mandatory worship service for all Amercians?
Similarly, I think it's good to give to the poor, but it's not my place to dictate to others to do the same. Nor is it your place, or that of the government's. That's the crux of the matter. I think you've made an error by assuming that because I think something is right, I think it should therefore be made into a law. I don't advocate Theocracy, and as such there's no contradiction or hypocriscy whatsoever in supporting these moral and economic principles.
I don't care about your religion. If I did I would have brought the word of Jesus into the discussion long time ago. Not only because I would have thought it was more important than I do know but also that I probably would know a lot more about his word, enough to debate with you on it.
I can't figure out what you mean by most of this.
I said in my post that I made that remark as a half-joke. Don't know if you saw it. But, yes, I think it's hypocritical to say that it's voluntary to give just as it is voluntary to be a christian. God and the bible and the word of Jesus are used constantly to justify a lot of things but only when it suits certain purposes. For God and Country and Crusade and God Bless America are phrases used to rasie the fighting spirit and patriotism among americans. I wonder how often those phrases are heard during meetings about the country's public sector budget.
What on Earth do the Crusades have to do with my socioeconomic stances? Using the idea of God as an excuse to shove your beliefs on someone else was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now; perfectly consistent.
Piddzilla
04-28-03, 04:17 PM
You're absolutely right. It has nothing to do with anything. Please, continue...
Piddzilla
04-28-03, 04:23 PM
I think the subject is interesting but not on this thread.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.