View Full Version : George W. Bush
This blows my mind. The leader of the free world (who wasn't even elected in the first place!!!!) is on a month-long vacation, while the situation in Israel is only getting worse, Macedonia is about to have a civil war, and unemployment is increasing in Europe. What dedication he has for his work!
I have problems with George W. Bush. This is a man who wants to drill for oil in wildlife reserves in Alaska, make Russia and China into enemies again, wants to decrease the bill for AIDS research, decrease the funding for alternative energy sources, is against gun control laws, speaks improper English, wants to build more nuclear power plants,etc.
On top of all this, he wasn't even elected by the people.
What are your thoughts on the president?
Give me a freakin' break. Your head is somewhere where it just shouldn't be. :D He was elected -- if you don't think he was, go read a little more about how our government works.
I have problems with George W. Bush. This is a man who wants to drill for oil in wildlife reserves in Alaska, make Russia and China into enemies again, wants to decrease the bill for AIDS research, decrease the funding for alternative energy sources, is against gun control laws, speaks improper English, wants to build more nuclear power plants,etc.
Excuse me? First of all, China is responsible for what has happened. I am fortunate enough to have spoken (online, albeit) with a former military pilot, who explained that it's virtually impossible for our plane to run into theirs.
I don't care if his English is a bit off. Most people make mistakes...but then again, most people don't have the entire country watching them. Oh, and by the way: many Democrats want the nuclear power plants as well. If they'd given into that earlier, California wouldn't have those rolling blackouts. Those are a result of a whole buttload of crazy environmentalists.
And let's stop being so dramatic. "Oh no! A wildlife preserve! GASP!!!! You can't do that...you just can't!" They're taking up something like .5% of the land there. Oh, the humanity.
On top of all this, he wasn't even elected by the people.
Neither was JFK -- but he was a damn fine President. I don't really care how he got into office at this point, and neither should anyone else. He IS in office, so we should focus on what he does there, IMO.
I'm against gun control laws, too. Our Founding Fathers were VERY clear about one simple thing: the people need to protect themselves from the government. Governments are a continuous source of evil and corruption. If given complete control over the people (IE: no weapons to fight back with), rest assured that they WILL become oppressive in one way or another.
Oh, and guess what? Reagan was another President who took a significant amount of time off. If you ask me, it could be a good idea. Not only that, but I seriously doubt he is completely isolating himself from his work. I don't know anyone who does that, save for rare exceptions.
And besides: Europe won't accept help. Europe dislikes us...what exactly is Bush supposed to do to help their sagging economy? Offer up more advice which they won't take?
Who financed his campaign? His oil-magnate buddies. How does he repay them? By giving them a priceless wildlife reserve to make themselves richer.
Concerning gun control, I think they should be outlawed completely. Would you rather tens of thousands of human beings, including children, be killed each year? I wouldn't. Imagine your little brother was killed by the kids across the street who found daddy's gun. Accidents happen. There is too great a risk for there to be guns in homes. I recall an ad from a year or so ago, and I remember it perfectly. It read like this:
Number of gun related deaths/year in:
Sweden - 4
United Kingdom - 16
Japan - 12
US - 12,000
I disagree with the Democrats who are for nuclear power plants as well. In 1985, it was predicted there was a 40% chance of a core breach meltdown before 2010. Nuclear power is too great a risk to the enviroment. Here's a quote from the president concerning his enviromental views: "using trees helps prevent the dangerous risk of forest fires". Yeah, ok. By that logic, we should kill people to prevent the flu.
Well for starters, he could at least ADDRESS the economic problem in Europe (which could be leading to a recession), instead of play golf all month.
And where are your explanations for his lack of interest in funding disease research and alternative energy source research? He'd rather satisfy those who installed him as President than actually do something to HELP the people.
Um, I just learned something that puts a hole in several things you said: Bush has not stopped working. He gave an address TODAY. This "vacation" only means that he's working from home, rather than The White House. Sorry if that puts a wrench into your criticisms.
Who financed his campaign? His oil-magnate buddies. How does he repay them? By giving them a priceless wildlife reserve to make themselves richer.
Billion dollar companies are not going to be made much richer because of that. Bush is doing it because people are demanding lower gas prices, Steve.
Concerning gun control, I think they should be outlawed completely.
Like in Cuba, right? :rolleyes: Let it be known that on this day, August 29th, 2001, Steve has declared himself correct in spite of the fact that virtually all of the Founding Fathers blatantly disagree with him. I'm all for confidence, but that's a bit much.
Would you rather tens of thousands of human beings, including children, be killed each year? I wouldn't. Imagine your little brother was killed by the kids across the street who found daddy's gun. Accidents happen. There is too great a risk for there to be guns in homes. I recall an ad from a year or so ago, and I remember it perfectly. It read like this:
Number of gun related deaths/year in:
Sweden - 4
United Kingdom - 16
Japan - 12
US - 12,000
Yeah, but did it talk about their respective CRIME RATES? Crime rates are almost ALWAYS lower in places where gun use is common. That's a simple fact.
Yeah, accident happens. But guess what? Well over 60 million gun owners in the US use their guns without hurting any innocent people everyday. How about this, Steve: millions of people die from driving cars, because cars, like guns, can be misused. Should we ban cars? It would save lives, right?
I disagree with the Democrats who are for nuclear power plants as well. In 1985, it was predicted there was a 40% chance of a core breach meltdown before 2010. Nuclear power is too great a risk to the enviroment. Here's a quote from the president concerning his enviromental views: "using trees helps prevent the dangerous risk of forest fires". Yeah, ok. By that logic, we should kill people to prevent the flu.
1985? You're telling me nuclear plants are dangerous because someine, SIXTEEN YEARS AGO, predicted that there was a 40% chance? Who said that, anyway? Heck, I don't care if God said it -- there's no way that's anywhere near the same today.
Well for starters, he could at least ADDRESS the economic problem in Europe (which could be leading to a recession), instead of play golf all month.
See above. Bush is still working everyday. Also: what leads you to believe he hasn't "addressed" it? Or are you just sort of saying that on a whim?
And where are your explanations for his lack of interest in funding disease research and alternative energy source research? He'd rather satisfy those who installed him as President than actually do something to HELP the people.
Well, before I get into that, I'd like some evidence to support these claims. From what I understand, Bush has plans in place to explore alternative energy sources, for one.
PigsnieLite
08-29-01, 02:16 PM
Hahaha, I knew this would upset TWT! Me, I dont care about your great leader altho I do think he is dim & looks goofy whenever he shows up on the telly. Pigsnie dislikes him like nutsy, he has never said a good word about Bush that Ive heard. And I saw a book on his desk the other day called the Bush Dislexicon, have you seen it, Steve? It has all the dumb stuff Bush has ever said & hes only been 6 months in office, hahaha !!! You guys should really be more careful countin your ballots, tisk tisk tisk.
Ps. TWT, you know, when somebodys president of the US, he shouldnt talk like me, Loll. :laugh:
Actually, I think that book has goofy things he's said long before he was elected. Most of the "Bushisms" floating around originated before he took office. And yeah, I'm not surprised that Pigsnie hates Bush...which is a shame. Bush has been slapped with more labels than an old can of tuna.
P.S. We have no more ballot problems than most other places in the world. If another country had such an amazingly close election, similar problems would have likely ensued.
BrodieMan
08-29-01, 03:30 PM
personally, i think bush is a moron. i have differing views than you two (steve and commish) but as far as drilling goes, i think the statistics speak for themselves. judging by scientific estimation, what bush would be doing by drilling in alaska is increasing the amount of incoming crude oil by just enough to last us another couple months. it's a fact. what we would be getting is not enough to deprive native americans of their homelands. as it is, there are native american tribes that currently dwell on the land that bush plans on digging up. what we would be doing would be no less damaging that the horrible injustices of yesteryear. also, the environment HAS to be a priority. i'm not a left-wing nutjob over hear, but personally, i don't think i want to live in a world where you can't breathe. how conservative politicians can totally downplay what we're doing to our mother earth is beyond me. and nuclear power? there's no way bush should be able to sell this to the american people. if he does, our grandchildren will regret it. so, as for the energy policy, bush is a moron. however, i do agree with commish on the gun control thing. if at any time, any politician can take away our constitutional rights, it should be stopped. correct me if i'm wrong guys, but i'm thinking back to the censorship thread and steve was against censorship on the basis that it's a basic human and constitutional right to say what you want. commish was for it, i think. now steve is taking the typical liberal view that guns should be taken away and commish is saying we should preserve our rights (and taking a conservative approach to this issue) this is why i don't understand partisan politics. how can you agree that people should be free to do one thing and not another? how should you be able to own a gun, but not watch a certain movie? how should you be able to say whatever you want artistically, but not go shooting for sport? i still don't get it. it's like the whole republican perspective on the death penalty: you can kill murderer, but a woman can't have an abortion at her own free will. well, open your eyes, if you're going to say that abortion is murder, you could also argue that the death penalty is murder, too. so, in response to the original poster's question: i don't like bush, but i would have been damned if i voted for gore. recently, i took an online poll that asks you questions, and assuming you answer totally honestly, it would tell you which party you would best be associated with. my results came up: conservative leaning libertarian. i did some research on the libertarian party and found them to agree on me with almost all major issues, including the legalization of marijuana in order to alleviate a lot of financial problems associated with the war on drugs. not to mention the right to bear arms, and other issues like that. now i'm not some anarchist saying that people should have no government, but libertarians are for keeping our nation safe and healthy, and at the same time providing us with the same freedom our forefaters saw fit for us to have. the whole-two party system is grossly flawed. the only reason it's a two-horse race is because they are the only parties with enough resources and cash to run. the media is fuled by money, so people like nader can't really get the coverage and build the support they need to run effeciantley. it's a faulty system that feeds on itself. i think the crappy election we just had ought to be wake-up call that NEITHER bush nor gore is really fit to run this country, and there needs to be more open mindedness and alternative solutions need to be found.
I started to read your post, but you NEED to break it into paragraphs. It's impossible to read otherwise. :( From what I have read, though, I'll say this: they're drilling on a VERY small portion of land (so how would we be displacing native americans? There's no way they're using all that land), and yes, it's a small fix to buy us all some time to figure out what to do. I see nothign wrong with that.
well, open your eyes, if you're going to say that abortion is murder, you could also argue that the death penalty is murder, too.
No...an unborn child hasn't even had a chance of life. A convicted murder has not only had a chance, but has done something horrible: denied someone else their right to life. As such, theirs is forfeit. They really don't deserve to live with us anymore for doing something so horrible.
BrodieMan
08-29-01, 03:45 PM
maybe you don't know this, but the extreme right is against any and all abortions, even in the case of emergencies, rape, and incest. personally, i am morally opposed to using abortion as a birth control, but there are extreme cases where you need to look at it from someone else's perspective, commish. again, i find myself unable to disagree with both extremes.
please don't comment on what i've said until you've read all of it. i'll use better grammar in the future.
I'm agreeing with Steve on this one, mostly. I do think Bush is a moron. He doesn't seem all that smart to me. Maybe it's the pressure of having to run a country that makes him look like a fool, but I doubt it.
As for the oil drilling in Alaska. I'm against it. Instead of allowing companies to drill there, they should give government grants to companies willing to research new methods of providing energy.
Same goes for Nuclear Power plants. Instead of spending money to build more of those long term death traps, money should be invested into making them safer, more effecient, or finding another way all together.
As for guns. I'm almost neutral on this. I don't like guns(we'll I do like guns, I find them interesting), but I don't like the idea of people being free, will almost free, to purchase and use guns. Banning guns will never, ever, ever happen in the US. It's too deep in them already. Sure it's a constitutional right, but that was really intended for back in the day. That ammendment was original created because it applied to the times. Guns were needed to survive. They were needed to hunt, they were needed for protection. They don't have much purpose at all in a modern society today. Guns are only trouble. They may solve problems temporairly, but guns will never fix anything. But neither will peace treaties(for the most part). Steve where did you see that ad? I saw something like that once and now I can't think of it, but it was very similar. It's driving me crazy.
I think the environment should be a top priorty right now. It's getting torn to pieces and it really is a sad thing. It simply amazes me too see acres and acres of forrest around my house being demolished for hundrends and hundreds of houses. Not to mention the hundreds of whales dying ever year due to poachers. Things like this need to be preserved. I am thankful because I live in a time where I can see such things, but in the future these will only be a distant memory if nothing is done. That's a sad thought.
But yes, I don't like Bush. The man is a fool.
maybe you don't know this, but the extreme right is against any and all abortions, even in the case of emergencies, rape, and incest. personally, i am morally opposed to using abortion as a birth control, but there are extreme cases where you need to look at it from someone else's perspective, commish. again, i find myself unable to disagree with both extremes.
please don't comment on what i've said until you've read all of it. i'll use better grammar in the future.
I do know that -- but I just assumed that we were only referring to the most common reasons...the ones that make up 99% of all abortions. I'm not sure what to do in emergency situations, but I'm not really talking about those. I'm talking about the fact that well over 1 million children are killed each year due to simple carelessness.
I'll be glad to comment on what you've said if you break it up into paragraphs...it's just too hard to read otherwise. I can live without punctuation, but I mess up constantly when reading one giant paragraph. Sorry.
I do think Bush is a moron. He doesn't seem all that smart to me. Maybe it's the pressure of having to run a country that makes him look like a fool, but I doubt it.
I don't find it all that likely that a moron is the leader of the free world. Forrest Gump is just a movie -- stupid people have almost no chance of getting that far in life without having something real behind it.
As for the oil drilling in Alaska. I'm against it. Instead of allowing companies to drill there, they should give government grants to companies willing to research new methods of providing energy.
It's not really "instead of" -- they're doing both. The drilling is a band-aid to hold things over while they decide how to perform the surgery.
Same goes for Nuclear Power plants. Instead of spending money to build more of those long term death traps, money should be invested into making them safer, more effecient, or finding another way all together.
Long term death traps? I think there's some exaggeration there. :D Anyway, money is being invested in find alternative energy sources (both for fuel, and power).
Sure it's a constitutional right, but that was really intended for back in the day. That ammendment was original created because it applied to the times. Guns were needed to survive. They were needed to hunt, they were needed for protection. They don't have much purpose at all in a modern society today.
Actually, that's not true. The Founding Fathers made it fairly clear that citizens should be allowed to possess guns to protect themselves if need be -- partially from the government. I think we can all agree that the government is a source of corruption. Cuba is a horrible place to live, and -- guess what? -- the citizens are not allowed to carry guns. The government has the guns.
They have plenty of purpose today: they give us power. They assure us some sort of freedom.
Guns are only trouble. They may solve problems temporairly, but guns will never fix anything. But neither will peace treaties(for the most part).
I disagree. Guns solved one big problem awhile back: British opression. The Revolutionary War -- perhaps you've heard of it? :D Guns allow us to stop the government from opressing us...which is something that WILL happen if we ban guns.
I think the environment should be a top priorty right now. It's getting torn to pieces and it really is a sad thing. It simply amazes me too see acres and acres of forrest around my house being demolished for hundrends and hundreds of houses. Not to mention the hundreds of whales dying ever year due to poachers. Things like this need to be preserved. I am thankful because I live in a time where I can see such things, but in the future these will only be a distant memory if nothing is done. That's a sad thought.
Yes, it is a sad thought -- but I don't think it's all that accurate. Here's an interesting fact: one of the co-founders of Greenpeace says that we have more rainforests now than we did 16,000 years ago. Not only that, but it has also been revealed (recently, I believe) that some of the methods used to test global warming out in the oceans are severely flawed.
In short: the earth is not in trouble. Despite what you hear, the sky is NOT falling. I don't think we could destory this planet if we wanted to. It's a lot stronger than we know, IMO. It doesn't help that we have idiots like Ted Danson saying things like "We only have 10 years to save this planet." That quote would be offensive if it weren't so funny. Wanna know what's funny about it? He said it in 1992 (roughly). :)
But yes, I don't like Bush. The man is a fool.
Compared to who? He probably knows more about economics and international trade than you and Steve will ever know -- and no, that's not a put-down towards you or Steve. I can only hope that comparison is one towards other politicans, because he knows a lot more about his job than you or I.
I don't find it all that likely that a moron is the leader of the free world. Forrest Gump is just a movie -- stupid people have almost no chance of getting that far in life without having something real behind it.
Sure he's got something behind it. But it's not much. Not much at all. The mans IQ is around 126. That's not saying much for the leader of the freeworld.
It's not really "instead of" -- they're doing both. The drilling is a band-aid to hold things over while they decide how to perform the surgery.
A band-aid isn't going to do much for something that requires surgery!:D Drilling for oil in Alaska is mainly so that the American Public can pay lower prices for gas. Sure that is temporairly a good thing, but in the long term its a very bad thing. Giving in now and letting them take that .5% of the reserve will weaken the strength of the government to hold its ground on such issues in the future. It starts off at .5%, next time it will be 1%, then 5%, then 10%. You get the idea.
Long term death traps? I think there's some exaggeration there. :D Anyway, money is being invested in find alternative energy sources (both for fuel, and power).
Ok that was an exaggeration, but my point remains valid. Much more powerful sources for eneregy do exist, but are only in experiemental stages. The reseaon they are still in these stages is because they have no funding. Nuclear Power is a good alternative, temporairly, but springing these things up all over the place is not a good idea. To the public this may seem like a safe alternative, but it is not. My dad works for a company called Sverdrup Civil Engineering. He designs proposals to do all sorts of stuff. The main proposals he gets now adays are for how to clean up the miles and miles of radiated soil all over the US. You'd be surprised to hear how many cities and airports have dangerous levels of radiation surrounding them, due to carlessness towards nuclear energy.
I disagree. Guns solved one big problem awhile back: British opression. The Revolutionary War -- perhaps you've heard of it? :D Guns allow us to stop the government from opressing us...which is something that WILL happen if we ban guns.
I don't know about you, but I've never been in such a situation where I have found it necessary to fight off the evil ways of the American Government with a shotgun!:D I've never been opressed by the government. The government has never phyiscally manifested itself, rang my doorbell and punched me in the face. If the Government makes a law that does opress me, what do I do? Shoot the American flag??:D Let's propose that today, every gun in the US dissapeared(excluding arms used in the Army, Navy, or Air Force). The government would not begin to opress the American Public. The American public would not need guns to fight off those government opressors, because there wouldn't be any. Everything would continue as normal, except there would be much less gun related deaths in the US. I agree that in todays world, guns are necessary to maintain peace on a global basis, but I see no reason for guns in houses. Take England for an example. Guns are illeagle there, are they not? Their crime rate is much lower than the US'. Hundreds less die per year due to gun related deaths. As far as I can tell the Queen isn't opressing the English public(Am I wrong P's?):D
Yes, it is a sad thought -- but I don't think it's all that accurate. Here's an interesting fact: one of the co-founders of Greenpeace says that we have more rainforests now than we did 16,000 years ago. Not only that, but it has also been revealed (recently, I believe) that some of the methods used to test global warming out in the oceans are severely flawed.
That comment by the Greenpease co-founder doesn't surprise me at all! Rainforests take a VERY long time to flurish and grow. It's not like they pop up over night. Those plants take a very long time to grow to their size. The rainforest is an amazing thing. Everything works in unison. If one aspect of the rainforest fails the whole system comes crumbling down. The rainforest is a very detailed, very advanced ecosystem. The reason there are more now that 16,000 years ago is because it takes time to perfect the reciepe for a rainforest. They don't appear out of no where. Who says more is a bad thing anyway? We have more people now than 16,000 years ago, doesn't justify genoicide.
Compared to who? He probably knows more about economics and international trade than you and Steve will ever know -- and no, that's not a put-down towards you or Steve. I can only hope that comparison is one towards other politicans, because he knows a lot more about his job than you or I.
I'm sure he does know more than I do about his job, but that doesn't mean he should be doing what he's doing. Hitler knew more about killing people in numbers than I do, doesn't mean it was ok for him to do so. Ok, comparing Bush to Hitler is a big exagerattion, but my point still stands. He isn't a smart fellow. You asked for a comparison. I compare him to Clinton. Clinton was a fine president. Exclude that, lets compare them as individuals. Clinton used proper grammar. Clinton was a good icon to represent America when being seen by other nations. Bush is not, in my opinion. Not only does Bush not appear to be a smart individual, as Clinton did, he truly isn't. I bring back the point of his IQ, 126. Clinton's was 186. That is 60 points higher than Bush's. He just isn't all too bright.
PigsnieLite
08-29-01, 05:10 PM
Thats true TWT. Clinton is very popular in Europe. A mag did a poll about him & 2/3 thought Clinton would be a better PM than Tony Blair. BTW, I didnt know about their IQs. I thought 100 was average so if Bushy is 126, isnt that still higher than average? And if Clinton is 186, then Clinton is genius!
Ps. Yeah, we dont have any guns either. Anyone killed by a gun is big news. PERSON MURDERED IN SHOCKING WAY! HE WAS SHOT WITH A GUN! Teehee. And then some paper suggests that the gun user should be hung & then chopped up in little bits & put on display in the Tower. :eek:
ryanpaige
08-29-01, 05:17 PM
A few things:
1. One cannot use stats from other countries in regards to gun-related deaths to try and say that America would be just like these other countries in murder rates if we just outlawed guns. The U.S. has a significantly higher non-gun murder rate than any other industrialized nation, too. We're more violent than the British with or without guns. While I support reasonable restrictions on firearms, I do realize that even outlawing guns will not make the U.S. anywhere near as "safe" as a place even like England.
2. That IQ thing is based on SAT scores and is not only flawed way to determine IQ, but it's also not even accurate. If we're going to debate facts, I suggest we use actual facts.
3. I've always found it interesting that the French were so pro-Nuclear Power. The U.S. hasn't built a new nuclear power plant since the '70s, but France has been churning them out so fast that now 75% of France's power is supplied by Nuclear Power Plants. There have been great advances in the safety of these power plants since the '70s, and these power plants can churn out more energy with less environmental damage than traditional power plants. Nuclear Power is a far different beast than it was even 15 years ago and should not be dismissed out of hand.
4. But I agree that alternative fuel sources should be nurtured, and they are in many ways. Deregulation included incentives for alternative energy and there are great strides being made in both solar energy and wind energy. My state's deregulation program includes incentives for co-location of energy and Natural Gas (which is far cleaner than both regluar gasoline and oil as well as heating oil) is a big player down here (and only growing bigger as more incentives come on-line). So these things are happening, and the best places for these things to happen is often at the state and local level because a solution that works in West Texas (where we have abundant wind, the world's biggest supply of natural gas, and no rivers or streams for hydroelectric power, etc.) isn't neccesarily going to be the best solution for Connecticut or California.
And that said, I'm not going to talk about this any more. I'm no big fan of GWB myself, but I wanted to say my piece and then bail-out like I often do on controversial topics.
Sure he's got something behind it. But it's not much. Not much at all. The mans IQ is around 126. That's not saying much for the leader of the freeworld.
I hadn't heard that, but 126 is what is considered "gifted," I believe. Far from a moron. He also scored something like 1200 on his SATs -- which is very good compared to most.
A band-aid isn't going to do much for something that requires surgery! Drilling for oil in Alaska is mainly so that the American Public can pay lower prices for gas. Sure that is temporairly a good thing, but in the long term its a very bad thing. Giving in now and letting them take that .5% of the reserve will weaken the strength of the government to hold its ground on such issues in the future. It starts off at .5%, next time it will be 1%, then 5%, then 10%. You get the idea.
That's very debatable. It may increase, or it may not. I don't think it will, because I think the "surgery" will do a good job of fixing things. If it does, then I don't think that the problem will compound. I think that Bush needs to weigh long-term .VS. short-term...which is exactly what he's doing. A small sacrifice (very small. Very, very small, IMO) to tide things over for a better solution.
Ok that was an exaggeration, but my point remains valid. Much more powerful sources for eneregy do exist, but are only in experiemental stages. The reseaon they are still in these stages is because they have no funding. Nuclear Power is a good alternative, temporairly, but springing these things up all over the place is not a good idea. To the public this may seem like a safe alternative, but it is not.
What are you basing that on? I've heard a bit about nuclear power (my stepdad used to work in that field), and virtually all I hear says that it pollutes less than alternative sources, and is VERY safe overall. Things have changed quite a bit in the past 15 years or so.
I don't know about you, but I've never been in such a situation where I have found it necessary to fight off the evil ways of the American Government with a shotgun! I've never been opressed by the government. The government has never phyiscally manifested itself, rang my doorbell and punched me in the face. If the Government makes a law that does opress me, what do I do? Shoot the American flag??
See, that's the problem: everyone is thinking "well, I've never been oppressed by the government! So what's the problem?" The problem is that it still can happen...and probably would, if we were to get rid of guns. It wouldn't happen overnight, but it would happen, unless something was done to prevent it.
No offense, but to say that you don't think it's a problem because you haven't had to worry about it so far is sort of naive. It's the opposite of the logic that supports taking care of the environment...or the type of logic that has California in darkness now and then.
Like I said earlier: I think the Founding Fathers had it right. Maybe you think they were wrong, but I don't. I think all governments, if given the chance, will become oppressive in some ways, over time. As for England: as Ryan said, we're different countries altogether, but from what I understand, England has less freedom than we do...and that includes economic freedom.
Everything would continue as normal, except there would be much less gun related deaths in the US. I agree that in todays world, guns are necessary to maintain peace on a global basis, but I see no reason for guns in house.
I suggest you get yourself a copy of "America's First Freedom," a pro-2nd ammendment magazine. Maybe after reading through some of the testimonials they publish every single issue, you'll realize that there are lots of people who's lives (or the lives of their family, or their property) have been preserved thanks to their ownership of a gun.
The reason there are more now that 16,000 years ago is because it takes time to perfect the reciepe for a rainforest. They don't appear out of no where. Who says more is a bad thing anyway? We have more people now than 16,000 years ago, doesn't justify genoicide.
I think you may have misunderstood me. More is NOT a bad thing. I'm trying to demonstrate that we're not tearing this planet apart...I don't think were capable of it. I think this planet will live through virtually everything we can throw at it.
You asked for a comparison. I compare him to Clinton. Clinton was a fine president. Exclude that, lets compare them as individuals. Clinton used proper grammar. Clinton was a good icon to represent America when being seen by other nations. Bush is not, in my opinion. Not only does Bush not appear to be a smart individual, as Clinton did, he truly isn't. I bring back the point of his IQ, 126. Clinton's was 186. That is 60 points higher than Bush's. He just isn't all too bright.
There's no way in bloody hell Clinton's IQ is over 180. I've heard from several places that those tests aren't even accurate above 150. I would also like to add that Clinton, despite his high IQ, did a lot of stupid things, and made more than his share of mistakes. I'll take a smart, honest man with a passion for his country over a sneaky, suspicious genius who lacks respect for all around him.
I thought 100 was average so if Bushy is 126, isnt that still higher than average? And if Clinton is 186, then Clinton is genius!
Yes, 126 makes him a smart, talented person (intellectually, that is). Not necessarily educated, but if that number is accurate, he has plenty of raw intelligence. And yes, 186 would make for a genius -- although a number that high can't be accurate. It's really ridiculous. I think even 140 or so is enough to be called a genius.
ryanpaige
08-29-01, 06:45 PM
Again, the problem with arguing about the IQs of various presidents is that we don't know them. President Clinton has never released his IQ score, nor has President Bush. So for us to accept made-up numbers as fact is to turn this argument into nothing more than an argument about fantasy. We might as well be arguing about which dragons are harder to kill.
For the record, Al Gore did release his IQ tests and he got scores of 133 and 134. If we accept that IQ scores have a direct correlation to SAT scores, then that would put Bush's IQ at 119 (the same as President Kennedy's, by the way, whose IQ we actually do know since his test score was released).
But there has never been a link established between the SAT and IQ, and other data would suggest that President Bush's IQ is above the 119 level that the SAT score would suggest (assuming a correlation that doesn't exist). The average national IQ for people with advanced degrees is 125. President Bush has an MBA from Harvard Business School, which would suggest a higher-than-119 IQ if he were merely average.
By the way, President Nixon had the highest reported IQ of any President at 143. President Clinton's IQ is likely high, but it has never been reported. Any numerical claim of his IQ is merely a guess. I could just as accurately say his IQ is 91.
Sir Toose
08-29-01, 08:32 PM
I'm taking the easy way out on this one... I'm in TWT's corner and I hereby give him the power to speak for me on this issue. I would weigh in in detail but I have work commitments. I saw one statement that wasn't elaborated on that I want to address:
"Drilling for oil in Alaska is mainly so that the American Public can pay lower prices for gas."
This is an added bonus but I don't think this is the point. At this moment in time America is controlled by oil. We would come to a screeching halt if we had none. Right now the oil supply is controlled by countries who are not exactly on friendly terms with us (in fact they are squeezing our ba**s).
Also, under the Clinton administration, military reserves were depleted. What would happen if the middle east teamed up with China (who also has no love for us) and decided to start a war? I know that economically China is better off at peace with us... but who knows what they are thinking.
End result is we are far better off being dependent on ourselves than being dependent on others.
spudracer
08-29-01, 09:04 PM
I was readin the other day of all the "Bushims" to date, and let me say...I am a repulican, and this is hella-hilarious. I'm surprised that the title of this thread isn't George Dubya Bush. The man may have bright spots, and is 20 times better than a tree hugger(Gore), but he isn't all there all the time. Does his mind take vacations while he is actually working??? Anyways, the guy is a good man, and I'm glad he got office, but he needs to snap out of the stupid bit, and start working.
PigsnieLite
08-29-01, 09:26 PM
How can you snap out of being stupid? Ha, Im sure theres a nob joke in there somewhere. :laugh:
spudracer
08-29-01, 09:30 PM
Well the man needs to start drinkin decaf, or gettin on some hooked on phonics, or somethin cause he aint winnin brownie points sayin words he thinks make him look smart.
We'll I'm tired so I'll post about the issues in the morning. But as for the IQ thing.
There is a group, I lost the source of this but I will find it later if anyone doubts, thats sole purpose is to estimate the IQ's of presidents. They do this through vaious forms etc. All of their results are accurate within 5 points. the average IQ of an American citizen is around 125. A few years ago I did a science fair project on does the size of ones head effect their IQ(it was an easy idea:D) so I know all this stuff about people's IQ's etc. It is not true that about 140 is not accurate. Any IQ number, if calculated properly, is accurate(within 5 points). So yes Ryan, those were actual facts.
I personally look at IQ numbers as a measure of ones ability to make quick and logical decisions. To me Bush does not appear to be able to do this. I think a president should be able to. I'm not saying he isn't fit to do the job, or that Gore was a beter choice, but that I just don't think he can do it as well as this country needs it.
Ok I might as well reply to that other stuff now.
See, that's the problem: everyone is thinking "well, I've never been oppressed by the government! So what's the problem?" The problem is that it still can happen...and probably would, if we were to get rid of guns. It wouldn't happen overnight, but it would happen, unless something was done to prevent it.
I don't think it would ever happen. If it were to ever happen then something terrible has gone wrong within the US government, something so big that shooting won't fix it. I'm not saying to ban guns in the US. I'm not saying to allow any person(regardless of age, sex, race, are any other kind of statistic) to own a gun. Which is why I'm neutral on the subject. I see no positive side to people owning guns.
I suggest you get yourself a copy of "America's First Freedom," a pro-2nd ammendment magazine. Maybe after reading through some of the testimonials they publish every single issue, you'll realize that there are lots of people who's lives (or the lives of their family, or their property) have been preserved thanks to their ownership of a gun.
I'm saying this prematurely because I haven't read the magazine yet, but I'm going to say it anyway. The way I see it the only case in which a gun would be needed to save a life or family is one in which a gun were to be used by the opressor. But if gun laws were strictly, very very strictly enforced, the opressor would not of had a gun, and thus a gun would not have been needed to stop them.
I personally think guns are fascinating. How they work, what their capable of, the design. It fasicnates me. Be that as it may, I still think that they are an immense problem that the US has allowed to accumulate over the years, but that will never be solved. I don't think guns should be banned in the US now, because that won't fix anything. Like I said before, its already too deep in the hole of guns to claw it's way out. I just think that guns should be severly limited in the US. Severly. But just the same since limiting guns in the US could be a good thing, it could just as well be a bad thing. Which is why I made my comment earlier. Guns are necessary to protect lives today, because the problem of guns availability to everyone has escalated to such a level that if they were to suddenly be banned, there would be a problem. So I repeat again, that I am neutral on the subject. I realize it is a constitutional right, so they should not be banned, but I also realize what they can do and that they should be limited in their availbilty. BUT due to the lack of retraint on the Governments part in the past, no new gun law will ever remedy the situation at present. There will always be gun troubles in the US.
But like Ryan, I feel that this debate is going no where good. It's just going to change people's views of other people on this MOVIE based website.:D So I'm going to try to limit my posts about this. I don't want it to turn into the Evolution debate that sprung up back in the day.
How do they determine this? And how do they know it's accurate within 5 points? And why are they the only ones who use a system wherein 125 is the average? :) And besides, if they test Presidents, how would they know what the US average is? :) That doesn't sound too legitimate to me.
I don't think it would ever happen. If it were to ever happen then something terrible has gone wrong within the US government, something so big that shooting won't fix it. I'm not saying to ban guns in the US. I'm not saying to allow any person(regardless of age, sex, race, are any other kind of statistic) to own a gun. Which is why I'm neutral on the subject. I see no positive side to people owning guns.
I'm sorry, but that is a VERY naive view. Humans are power-hungry by nature. What makes you think the US government is more pure than all the others? I agree that we are a special nation, but I think part of that stems from the fact that the government cannot truly oppress us...we can fight back. Like I said: do you really believe the Founding Fathers were wrong, and that there's no risk of it EVER happening?
And yeah, some shooting WILL fix it. "Some shooting" has allowed entire countries to change the reins of power in the past, and it will again in the future, I'll bet.
I'm saying this prematurely because I haven't read the magazine yet, but I'm going to say it anyway. The way I see it the only case in which a gun would be needed to save a life or family is one in which a gun were to be used by the opressor. But if gun laws were strictly, very very strictly enforced, the opressor would not of had a gun, and thus a gun would not have been needed to stop them.
That's not really the case. Many of them (in fact, from my memory, the majority of the them) involve knives, or people breaking into houses at night. In situations like that, you don't know what's going on. A knife is more than enough to kill a family member. Some testimonials involve people caught in the middle of a crime who are held at gunpoint by civilians until the police can arrive.
Places with high gun ownership levels are almost always shown to have lower crime rates as well. I read awhile back about a town where well over half the people owned (and carried) guns. The crime rate was one of the lowest in the entire nation. If you were a criminal, would you rob someone more likely, or less likely, to own a gun?
I think the requirements for a gun should be, in short: no criminal record (I'm not talking about speeding tickets...I'm talking about real crimes), no history of mental problems, and a required safety course to cover the basics. Other than that, I think it's a slap in the face to our founders, and many great men of the past, to try to ban handguns.
Like I said: Cuba is not free...the people hate it there. They don't have the guns, the government does. Guns allowed the US to become independent, for crying out loud. If the British had them, and we didn't, we wouldn't have had much of a chance (not that we did anyway, but the odds would have been even worse).
I can understand the arguments against them, but I don't know how you can fail to see their benefits...to me, that part has always been obvious. Many lives are saved thanks to handguns each day...but because a few people abuse them, we're gonna ban them? No way...by that logic, we should ban cars, or anything else than is misused now and then, resulting in death.
Wow, I don't visit the board for one day and this thread has exploded.
I'll level with you on guns. People should be allowed to own guns - the ones that were in use at the time the Constitution was written. I think that's reasonable, since they were necessary at the time. But today they are not. Handguns in particular are meant to cause harm. Automobiles aren't. That argument doesn't hold up at all. So, TWT, essentially you are saying that you prefer to have people, particularly children, at risk for a horrible accident, so that these millions of gun owners can go kill wildlife, or keep the gun under their bed so they'll feel safe at night? What does a handgun protect? A shotgun? If guns are banned, they will eventually go away, because they serve no realistic purpose.
These "conservative leaders" (both religious and political) are championing racism, sexism, homophobia, enviromental destruction, greed, and dishonesty under the guise of "American and Christian morality". Senator John Ashcroft was/is in support of the banning of interracial dating!! Since when does that have to do with politics, or Christianity for that matter? How is that moral? Ignorance is not a political issue, nor a religious one. How is allowing police officers to shoot a man 41 times because he was reaching for his wallet American?
And on the other side of that coin, how does the execution of prisoners solve problems? Who benefits? Seems to me like we're just advocating vengeance. And since when were motherless children smiled upon in America? Should unwanted children be born into a system that will spit them into the street with nothing but a crack pipe? What's wrong with this system?
I'm saying that I don't disagree with some Democratic views, but these "conservative" views infuriate me to no end. George W. Bush is just an example of one of these monsters.
I agree with Peter - this debate is going nowhere. But I stand by my views, I will not back down. Anyway, reply whatever you want.
I'll level with you on guns. People should be allowed to own guns - the ones that were in use at the time the Constitution was written. I think that's reasonable, since they were necessary at the time. But today they are not.
As I've said twice already, tell that to people who are alive because they happened to have one with them. It's pretty ignorant (no offense meant, you're a smart guy) to claim that they have no use.
So, TWT, essentially you are saying that you prefer to have people, particularly children, at risk for a horrible accident, so that these millions of gun owners can go kill wildlife, or keep the gun under their bed so they'll feel safe at night? What does a handgun protect? A shotgun? If guns are banned, they will eventually go away, because they serve no realistic purpose.
Incorrect. Feel safe at night? You know, some people live in dangerous places. Some people really do need that protection. Are you willing to have people at risk of a horrible accident so that we can save time by driving cars?
And no, the logic is not faulty: a gun is created to be used in legal ways: self defense, or hunting...usually the former. Just like a car, if it is not mis-used, there will be no problem.
Senator John Ashcroft was/is in support of the banning of interracial dating!!
Did you just make that up? I want some evidence.
Should unwanted children be born into a system that will spit them into the street with nothing but a crack pipe? What's wrong with this system?
Better than killing them before they even have a chance.
Oh, and I've got some news for you: when something is said to have been "cut" all it usually means is that it's not being raised as much as something else, or that it's not being raised as much as was planned at some earlier point...a VERY misleading way to phrase things.
Gotta start backing this stuff up, man. Besides, those views are warped: poor children are shot...we must ban guns! But it's okay to kill the ones that haven't been born yet? And yes, killing a prisoner can solve problems...for one, how do you know it's not a deterrant to others? It is justice, not revenge. It is closure for the family...or would you deny them that so we can keep a murderer alive in prison?
ryanpaige
08-30-01, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by OG-
There is a group, I lost the source of this but I will find it later if anyone doubts, thats sole purpose is to estimate the IQ's of presidents. They do this through vaious forms etc. All of their results are accurate within 5 points. the average IQ of an American citizen is around 125. A few years ago I did a science fair project on does the size of ones head effect their IQ(it was an easy idea:D) so I know all this stuff about people's IQ's etc. It is not true that about 140 is not accurate. Any IQ number, if calculated properly, is accurate(within 5 points). So yes Ryan, those were actual facts.
Sourcing a made-up source is no better than just making the stuff up yourself. You really should not get your "factual" information from chain emails.
I believe the email goes a little like this:
In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush.
Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published it's research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.
According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.
Guess what? There is no such thing as the Lovenstein Institute and there is no such thing as the Swanson/Crain System of intelligence ranking.
If I send you an email with made-up stuff in it will you then use the stuff in my email and claim they are actual facts? Because if that is all it takes to win an argument, I'll get my email stating that a study by the Morgenstern Institute of Lower Weehauken, Iowa released a study using the Goodman/Rogers System of intelligence ranking that showed Bill Clinton had an IQ of only 4 while George W. Bush has an IQ of 753.
Just wanted to add that I'll argue about this forever, but It seems a lot of things I'm saying are getting ignored here. What of, for example, the ridiculous claims earlier that implied that Bush was, in fact, free of work for a month? Or how about the claims that he's "cutting" (there's that misleading term again!) certain things...gotta back some of that up, man. :)
Sir Toose
08-30-01, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Steve N.
So, TWT, essentially you are saying that you prefer to have people, particularly children, at risk for a horrible accident, so that these millions of gun owners can go kill wildlife, or keep the gun under their bed so they'll feel safe at night? What does a handgun protect? A shotgun? If guns are banned, they will eventually go away, because they serve no realistic purpose.
This is obviously written by someone who has never been in a situation where one was needed. I'm not going into details on this but I have been, and thank God I had one. No one is dead, but it was a definite deterrent. A true "realistic purpose" as it were because I would not be writing this if I had not had one.
People seem to believe that if guns are outlawed they will magically disappear from the face of the earth. The people who will abuse guns will always be able to get them. There is NO law that will prevent this. In fact, we have great gun laws but the criminals don't follow the laws... that's what makes them criminals. Banning of guns will only make it harder for decent people to get them... it will not have any effect on criminals because they live outside of the boundaries of the law.
Plain and simply a gun is a tool and nothing more. It is hewn metal and embodies no evil. PEOPLE can choose to use a gun for evil purposes. If your theory that guns will go away somehow happens these same people who use guns maliciously will use knives until you outlaw them, then sticks until you outlaw them, then if all else fails they will beat you to death with their bare hands because these people are evil.
I am NOT an evil person because I believe I have a right to protect myself and my family by any means, including guns, from someone who is trying to take my God given life and/or freedom away from me be they an individual a group or a government.
Speaking to the issue of accidents and children. If you look around your house there are at least 20 things that can kill a child. How does the child know to avoid these? Why aren't all kids dead? Because it is our responsibility as parents to teach them where the dangers lie. It is also our responsibility to keep them from danger. I own guns. They are in a locked cabinet and the only key is on my keyring which stays in my pocket at all times. I keep the bullets in a seperate location (in fact locked in the trunk of my car) so in the million to one chance they get in the cabinet they won't be able to load a gun. I know for a fact they would not do this anyways because I've already taught them gun safety. Accidents happen because of a lack of education and preparation and a lack of basic responsibility.
Steve N, I respect your passion and your position but I personally view it as idealistic. People just don't play by the rules.
Ryan, I do look like a fool now.:) So I do retract earlier what I said about his IQ, BUT for the record(so I don't look like a complete idiot) the only reason I said that is because not only did I get it in an email, I saw it on the local news a few days before that. But as for the things that I said about IQ's(above 140 and the average) that is true.
I'm sorry, but that is a VERY naive view. Humans are power-hungry by nature. What makes you think the US government is more pure than all the others? I agree that we are a special nation, but I think part of that stems from the fact that the government cannot truly oppress us...we can fight back. Like I said: do you really believe the Founding Fathers were wrong, and that there's no risk of it EVER happening?
I'm not saying the US government is pure, but I just don't see that ever happening. The reason the government does not opress us isn't because we can fight back, it's because it cannot. It cannot because of the very intertwined power the government has given itself. For it to begin to opress it's citizens it would have to of abandoned everything that it is made of. There would be no more Executive, Legislative, or Judical branch of government. There would be no more constitution. The reason the government does not opress the American public is because it does not have the power to do so. I do agree that if it ever did, it would recieve equal opposition from the public, but with guns?? Guns don't solve everything. Companies would cut government support, the Government would loose money etc etc. I just simply don't see that ever being plausible because of how deeprooted the governments powers are. Call me naive all you want, but I just don't see that ever happening.
That's not really the case. Many of them (in fact, from my memory, the majority of the them) involve knives, or people breaking into houses at night. In situations like that, you don't know what's going on. A knife is more than enough to kill a family member. Some testimonials involve people caught in the middle of a crime who are held at gunpoint by civilians until the police can arrive.
A stun gun would just of easily of stopped an intruder. For purposes of protection, I feel guns could just as easily be replaced by other things. An air taser for example would be more than adequate in the protection of ones house. And it doesn't resulte in death.
Places with high gun ownership levels are almost always shown to have lower crime rates as well. I read awhile back about a town where well over half the people owned (and carried) guns. The crime rate was one of the lowest in the entire nation. If you were a criminal, would you rob someone more likely, or less likely, to own a gun?
Again I'd like to point out that I never said to ban guns in anyway. Maybe I wasn't clear on it before, but I will make it clearer now. I can see the use of a small pistol in the protection of ones home or family members, I see no reason why a US citizen should not be allowed to own one, BUT I don't see a case in which a high caliber gun would be neccesary. Why do average citizens need to own a double barrled shotgun, or a semi-automatic pistol or machine gun? Do you really need a machine gun to protect your home?? Again, I'd like to point out I'm not saying to ban them, I do feel that everyone has the right to own one, BUT I don't see why people feel necessary to own anything more than a pistol to defend off intruders? (Now what I just said does sound very naive)
I think the requirements for a gun should be, in short: no criminal record (I'm not talking about speeding tickets...I'm talking about real crimes), no history of mental problems, and a required safety course to cover the basics. Other than that, I think it's a slap in the face to our founders, and many great men of the past, to try to ban handguns.
That I agree with you on. Again I'd like to point out I was never in favor of banning guns, just that I personally do not find it necessary to own one.
Like I said: Cuba is not free...the people hate it there. They don't have the guns, the government does. Guns allowed the US to become independent, for crying out loud. If the British had them, and we didn't, we wouldn't have had much of a chance (not that we did anyway, but the odds would have been even worse).
How many Cubans do you know? How do you know that they hate it?
People seem to believe that if guns are outlawed they will magically disappear from the face of the earth. The people who will abuse guns will always be able to get them. There is NO law that will prevent this. In fact, we have great gun laws but the criminals don't follow the laws... that's what makes them criminals. Banning of guns will only make it harder for decent people to get them... it will not have any effect on criminals because they live outside of the boundaries of the law.
I agree completely, which is why banning guns is stupid. I said something along these lines earlier, but I guess no one noticed.
[Edited by TWTCommish on 08-30-2001]
ryanpaige
08-30-01, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by OG-
Ryan, I do look like a fool now.:) So I do retract earlier what I said about his IQ, BUT for the record(so I don't look like a complete idiot) the only reason I said that is because not only did I get it in an email, I saw it on the local news a few days before that. But as for the things that I said about IQ's(above 140 and the average) that is true.
I didn't question that part about averages and the accuracy of scores above 140, etc. (but you knew that. You were just reiterating it since it was questioned).
I hate IQ tests, by the way. When my mother was getting her Master's in Psychology, her and her fellow students gave me that stupid test over and over again to fulfill their class requirements. I think that was a driving factor for my moving in with my father when my parent's divorced. :)
At any rate, I guess I couldn't be the leader of the free world because my IQ is sub-Al Gore level (128, if I recall correctly), but I didn't want to be President anyway. I just want to make silly movies. I don't think one has to have a high IQ for that, do they?
I edited your post to fix some of the quote tags...hope you don't mind. :)
I'm not saying the US government is pure, but I just don't see that ever happening. The reason the government does not opress us isn't because we can fight back, it's because it cannot. It cannot because of the very intertwined power the government has given itself.
Who says the government has to stay the way it is? Lots of governments are perfectly okay at some point. Think about this: the government takes over half of some people's money. Many, many people are dependent on the government for survival. We are slowly moving towards communism, where everyone puts in money (whether they want to or not), that is then re-distributed to everyone else.
This trend towards communism is quite clear...and, of course, it's not much of a stretch to go from communism to an oppressive dictatorship! Will it happen? No, not the way things are now...but that does't mean it CAN'T happen. Think about this: what has made America above the others? Freedom of all kinds. As before, I'm gonna side with Mr. Jefferson on this one. :)
A stun gun would just of easily of stopped an intruder. For purposes of protection, I feel guns could just as easily be replaced by other things. An air taser for example would be more than adequate in the protection of ones house. And it doesn't resulte in death.
Well, for one, a stun gun isn't as frightening to a potential criminal. I dunno about you, but if I were held at "stun gun point," I'd consider making a break for it...because it's worth the chance of getting stunned if I can get away. If it were a "real" gun, though, I wouldn't even consider it.
But overall, I don't think it's fair to tell people what level of protection they're allowed to have like that. There are limits, but in my opinion, if you're going to allow them to defend themselves, you should allow them to do so with something more frightening to criminals. Maybe a stun gun would work, but I still think they should be able to make their own choice in that matter.
It's like the death penalty: maybe, if someone murdered a friend or family member of mine, I would want the murderer kept alive and in prison anyway...but I also wouldn't begrudge anyone who felt differently, and wanted the criminal dead.
Again I'd like to point out that I never said to ban guns in anyway. Maybe I wasn't clear on it before, but I will make it clearer now. I can see the use of a small pistol in the protection of ones home or family members, I see no reason why a US citizen should not be allowed to own one, BUT I don't see a case in which a high caliber gun would be neccesary. Why do average citizens need to own a double barrled shotgun, or a semi-automatic pistol or machine gun? Do you really need a machine gun to protect your home??
Well, a shotgun, actually, is probably a bit better, in some ways, than a pistol. It sprays, doesn't it? Seems to me that makes it easier to hit something you're aiming at. In situations where someone is struggling with you, or running from you, or something of the sort, that can really come in handy.
And yeah, I think it's a bit crazy to have a machine gun in your home. I don't understand why it's necessary at all to have something like that...but I still think it's someone's right to own one. Besides, most guns used for personal protection are simple handguns. Maybe powerful ones, but certainly not rifles/machine guns.
How many Cubans do you know? How do you know that they hate it?
I know none...but seeing as how thousands about thousands (literally...really, truly, literally) have died in shark-infested waters trying to escape from it, it can't be all that nice. The standards of living are incredibly poor when compared to the standards we enjoy. We have problems with drunk drivers and criminals in guns...they have problems with finding enough food at times.
I agree completely, which is why banning guns is stupid. I said something along these lines earlier, but I guess no one noticed.
I should have made it more clear: I do, indeed, see what you're saying, but even though you don't want them banned, you still seem to think that, in some situations, it could work. IE: we'd never put up with it, so it's not practical...but we should put up with it.
Yeah, they're a bit shaky. I took the one on IQTest.com awhile back and scored pretty high...but there's no way it's all that accurate. Needs to be much longer, I'd imagine. Maybe I'll take a real one someday, but it's not much of a concern of mine. It's all in how much of your intelligence you use. I think the two smartest (based on IQ) people ever (on record, that is) both ended up in very menial jobs, writing books no one read.
ryanpaige
08-30-01, 02:48 PM
One last thing for me to be picky about: The part about stun guns not killing people should say that stun guns don't usually kill people. People have died after being stunned. It's relatively rare, but it still happens.
And stun guns are being used as torture devices by several groups that have them (from police departments to random sickos), so they aren't all sunshine and lollipops, either.
Here's an interesting thought, though, in regards to firearms. Since the majority (about 55%) of gun-related deaths are intentional suicides, would those people necessarily still be alive if they didn't have access to a gun? Or would they have simply used other means to kill themselves? The suicide rate in the United States is considerably lower than many European countries (and Japan) which have much tougher gun control laws, so the idea that easy access to guns causes these suicides to be successful is questionable.
Another thought, even though 700 kids under 17 die each year from firearm-related deaths, is that enough justification to ban firearms? Sure, it's tragic, but over 2,000 kids under 15 die in car crashes each year and over 1,000 drown each year, and about 700 other kids are slaughtered with knives, blunt objects or bare hands.
Let's keep in mind, too, that even gun control advocates say that 2% of gun-related deaths are self-defense, that would work out to about 425 successful self-defenses with a firearm per year. Not to mention that this stat only includes successful self-defenses that resulted in a death for the aggressor. Surely one does not need to persent a corpse in order to have successfully defended themselves with a gun. Even many gun control advocates admit that approximately 84,000 successful self-defenses with a firearm occur each year that do not result in death. That's almost 8 times the number of non-suicide gun-related deaths each year.
Now that gets into a murky area there. Would these self-defenses have been successful with something other than a firearm? There's no way to know that without having been at each incident and been able to replay each incident with different weapons.
So, I would say that it is an issue with a lot of gray (just like pretty much every issue there is). I don't personally like guns, but this isn't a black-and-white issue, so it's hard to know what the "right" thing to do really is.
This trend towards communism is quite clear...and, of course, it's not much of a stretch to go from communism to an oppressive dictatorship! Will it happen? No, not the way things are now...but that does't mean it CAN'T happen. Think about this: what has made America above the others? Freedom of all kinds. As before, I'm gonna side with Mr. Jefferson on this one. :)
I never said it couldn't happen(I'm not implying you that you think I said that), I just said I didn't see it happening, which apparently you don't either.
Well, for one, a stun gun isn't as frightening to a potential criminal. I dunno about you, but if I were held at "stun gun point," I'd consider making a break for it...because it's worth the chance of getting stunned if I can get away. If it were a "real" gun, though, I wouldn't even consider it.
Thats just the thing, guns have earned a reputation, stun guns and air tasers are new, no one really knows what their capable of. An air taser will f**k you up. An air taser will seriously make somoene who has been shot by one think about doing whatever it was that made them deserve it, and most likely not do it again. Sure it may not look threating, but a stun gun or air taser can leave a person unconcious for hours. I'm not saying ban guns and replace them with electrical devices, I just think some people should consider them an option. I was reading up on the rare stun gun death, and the reason these people die is related to personal disorders in which the persons body is not able to sustain that amount of electricty. They die due to a genetic disorder. Tragic yes, but they are still much safer than guns.
Well, a shotgun, actually, is probably a bit better, in some ways, than a pistol. It sprays, doesn't it? Seems to me that makes it easier to hit something you're aiming at. In situations where someone is struggling with you, or running from you, or something of the sort, that can really come in handy.
A double barrled shotgun, when shot at centermass(the center of ones torso) will blow a man in half. A close rang blast from a shotgun is almost always fatal. Shotguns are raw power. I personally don't think people should be allowed to wield them. Owning one just because it is more likely to hit something is stupid. If your going to own a gun I think it should be required that you can properly aim your firearm so that a spray weapon wouldn't be needed to compensate for bad aim.
When I was in 7th grade, a Cuban teacher came to my school to give a speech on imigrants and imigration. She explained that the media exploits Cuba's hardships much more than they actually are. It's not like they have guns put to their heads daily and are forced to do things. She said that she has lived there all her life and has never once seen a person publicly shot, or had even seen a gun fired in any way other than a recreational way. She then explained that the only reason people flee is because places like America offer more money for jobs that they do in Cuba. I'm not saying I'm gonna rush onto the next plane to go live in Cuba, but the media really does exploit what is going on in other countries much worse than it really is.
Here's an interesting thought, though, in regards to firearms. Since the majority (about 55%) of gun-related deaths are intentional suicides, would those people necessarily still be alive if they didn't have access to a gun? Or would they have simply used other means to kill themselves? The suicide rate in the United States is considerably lower than many European countries (and Japan) which have much tougher gun control laws, so the idea that easy access to guns causes these suicides to be successful is questionable.
Banning guns won't do anything about suicide. Someone who is willing to kill themselves won't let the unavailability of a gun stop them.
[Edited by TWTCommish on 08-30-2001]
I never said it couldn't happen(I'm not implying you that you think I said that), I just said I didn't see it happening, which apparently you don't either.
Oh, I see it happening alright...IF guns are banned. Seems hard to believe, but that's because none of us have ever experienced anything like it.
And yeah, people should consider stun guns...but, for me, I want something that the criminal will run from right away. I'd go with a gun.
If your going to own a gun I think it should be required that you can properly aim your firearm so that a spray weapon wouldn't be needed to compensate for bad aim.
Even people who have taken classes will miss at times. What about a struggle? I can imagine, without much difficulty, how it would be useful to have a shotgun when your adrenaline is pumping and you can hardly think, let alone aim with a high amount of precision.
I personally would not use a shotgun...but, again, I don't have a problem with anyone who does use one.
When I was in 7th grade, a Cuban teacher came to my school to give a speech on imigrants and imigration. She explained that the media exploits Cuba's hardships much more than they actually are. It's not like they have guns put to their heads daily and are forced to do things.
Living in a country where you've never seen someone forced to do something with a gun to their head isn't much to brag about. :) Besides; it does happen. Many people have come forward and said so.
If you don't believe Cuba is messed up, you will after you hear this: according to their law, the parents are not the legal guardians of their children...the government is. Castro is basically their legal father. The parents do not own their children in any form...they simply watch over them. Even if this is only a legal method, it is still VERY unsettling, and I think it speaks volumes about the thinking of their government.
Oh, and that's not all: from what I believe I've heard, Cuba's government controls their media/newspapers.
Anyway, on the subject of communism: there's no doubt it's a failure. Some friends of mine went to China awhile back, and they had to bring anything they wanted with them...clothes, toilet paper, some food, asprin, etc. Things that we consider to be necessities are difficult to get over in China. Cuba runs under a similar government...and China also has the "media ban" type thing in place.
Well for the record on Communism, I think it was an excellent, very efficent system. I for one would not want to live under a Communist system, but if you think about how it all works, it is extremely efficent.
About Cuba. I'm sure life there is rough, but don't believe everything the media sells you. I know it is messed up there, and the government runs the show, but if you believe they go around doing public beatings(not saying you do, just a general comment) then your mistaken.
Communism is not practical on anything more than a very small, specific class of people. People love to talk about how it's a great concept, and all that, but it's really not. It goes against human nature, and the tpes of things that motivate us to become productive.
It's the equivalent of saying "let's build buildings in the sky!" Sure, it'll save us lots of space, but humans don't fly...so it's not practical. In both instances, the way humans are has to be turned on it's head for the idea to work. Not only that, but Communism always leads to terrible things. It's inevitable.
As for Cuba: I don't think people are beaten all the time, but I do think there are a lot of horrible things going on that are not seen. Like I said: the government owns the children, and there is no freedom of the press. In my opinion, those are two basic human rights. Cuba is a nightmare for human rights.
BrodieMan
09-29-01, 08:35 PM
up again. :D
I didn't think there was much of a debate left on this thread?
I think by far the best debate thread on here was the 'Evolution' thread that Zeph started as a continuation of one at James' site. That was a very long thread. That was back in the early days though. TWT would you consider that the first debate? It was the first I was in.
What ever happened to Jamesglewisf? Is he ok? Is FrappyDoo back up?
He started on here? I don't remember an Evolution thread here...just on James' site. James has been very busy with his work, and had to shut FrappyDoo! down because it was taking time away from his job/family. It's a shame, but I think he made the right choice. He may return here someday, and there's always the possibility of FrappyDoo! re-opening, but I honestly don't think either will happen anytime soon. :( Anyway, I dunno what the first debate on this site was...there were lots of disagreements early on about movies and such, so I dunno where the line is drawn on "debate" exactly. It must be pretty old, though, if I don't even remember it anymore. Hehe. :)
http://www.movieforums.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=327&goto=newpost
That was it.
Originally posted by OG-
http://www.movieforums.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=327&goto=newpost
That was it.
I read the entire thread. Everything was thrown into the pot . . . creationism, big bang theory, Sumerians, the Book of Mormon, relativity, genetics---- awesome
I'm reviving this thread. I've heard people talkin' smack about Dubya, and I've had enough! :) Alright, who's first? Who wants a piece of this? Who wants to talk smack about him? Go ahead, hit me with it.
Monkeypunch
03-15-02, 11:37 PM
I'm not talking smack, per say, but George W. Bush scares me. I think he will be the first president to launch a nuclear warhead, and well, that's a frightening prospect. George W. isnt dumb, I can admit that, but he scares the hell out of me. Someday, when we all live in a nuclear wasteland, and our kids have flippers for hands or worse, we can all thank our beloved Dubya for keeping America "safe"....
"All we are saying is give peace a chance" - John Winston Ono Lennon
I'm such a hippie.:D
:rolleyes: Uh-huh. Okay man. :) I'll have to wait almost 7 years for you to see that that's not true, but I'm a patient guy. Man, I can't wait to see what this country's got cooked up next...including Dubya and his cabinet. I'm excited.
Monkeypunch
03-15-02, 11:54 PM
I certainly hope I'm wrong! I also hope that you're wrong and the people rise up and vote him out of office! (Or is he gonna have his brother fix the next election too? Is it a coincidence that the recounts were done in Florida, where Jeb Bush is the governor? I doubt it.) I can't imagine seven more years of Bush. It'd be like the Regan years all over again. or worse. Bush is the new NIXON. And do NOT tell me you liked Nixon too. You seem to love all the corrupt and insane ones....
Oh, yeah...and JFK is buried in Elvis' tomb...Elvis was moved to Roswell. :)
Monkeypunch
03-16-02, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by TWTCommish
Oh, yeah...and JFK is buried in Elvis' tomb...Elvis was moved to Roswell. :)
WHAT?!?! That's no answer! Don't talk to me like I'm a retard. I hope that you were joking when you said you were 17 in the Movies of the Year you were born thread, because if you weren't, YOU DIDN"T EVEN VOTE FOR THE MAN WHO IS RUINING OUR COUNTRY! :furious:
Sure it was an answer: it's another way of saying "don't be so paranoid. Not everything is a conspiracy, you know." Yes, I'm 17. That angers you, for some reason? Sure, I didn't vote for him. And yeah, that bothers me. I wish I could have. I'm just glad I'll be able to vote for him in his reelection campaign.
Ruining our country? Uh, needless to say I think you're completely wrong. The guy's been in office one year...he hasn't even had TIME to ruin anything, for crying out loud. Sorry, but the sky is NOT falling.
Monkeypunch
03-16-02, 12:16 AM
Yeah, I'll probably too dead to vote in the next election, which I'm sure you won't mind. I'm in the Army, and eventually I'll get sucked up into GWB's jousting at windmills, not catching Osama Bin Laden war against every other country. I was all for catching Osama, I really was, but now Bush is saying that it's not really about Osama...but he also said he'd catch OBL "Dead or Alive"back in September. I don't see any dead OR alive Bin Laden, and I don't see how attacking Iraq is gonna get him. I joined back in 99, B.B. (Before Bush), BTW.
Well, I hope you make it. And I thank you for serving in the Army. It's a noble thing your doing. I can't say I'm opposed to these military actions, though. Maybe we've gotten Bin Laden already, but don't know it. Maybe not. I don't think anyone really knows at this point...but he's right in saying it's about more than Bin Laden.
Anyway, I think he's been wonderful so far, and I think he'll be re-elected, and I think he'll do a good job in his second term there, and will, in the end, be considered by many as one of the better Presidents in American history. There's some Lincoln in Dubya, I tell ya', and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Donald T. Phillips, a Lincoln biographer, says the same thing. Reagan biographers seem to feel the same way. I think Dubya's something special; I'm thrilled to have him in The White House. I love how down to earth he is, with phrases like "Cough him up." I love how the media is reporting on how prompt and timely he is compared to the last administration.
I love that he understands that money is better spent by those who worked for it, and that the Founding Fathers knew better than most of us, and that this country, despite being uneducated compared to many other civilized countries, and overweight compared to basically all of them, is still great, because of freedom, and that taxation is part of that. I think he gets it...and personally I simply CANNOT WAIT to see the rest of his time in office.
Monkeypunch
03-16-02, 12:24 AM
Okay, Okay...I call a truce. Let's just agree to disagree and get back to what's really important here....Movies.
What's the beef with George W. these days? I mean, heavens, he's just doing what he's always been doing: what's in the best interests for the country.
..Such as, stealing an election (gotta put up detours and police I.D. checks to keep the blacks away from the polls..can't have them ruining things), equating diversity with low standards, free enterprise with civil liberty, private schools based on free enterprise, and segregation of blacks with opportunity from white folks. Oh, and attempting to ban fetal tissue research (so the sick will die faster, as God intends them to), spending the entire budget surplus on a trillion dollar tax cut for the rich (justifying himself by lamenting about how "if only we knew 2 months ago" - when in fact experts were saying well before the idea was even conceptualized that there wouldn't be a surplus), stomping out medical marijuana, "cracking down" on drug offenders (because doing things to your own body is illegal), supporting guns in church (in case any criminals walk in), supporting the execution of prisoners with mental deficiencies, etc, etc.
As far as economics goes, I can't profess to know anywhere near as much as TWT does on the subject, but I'll point to Enron as an example of what I see in Bush's economy. For economic policies, Enron asked for deregulation with no government interference, and got it. On tax policy, they asked for the elimination of the corporate alternative tax, and got it. Enron asked for no caps on electricity prices in California, and got it. Enron and Bush were f--k buddies. And Enron went to sh-t.
Thanks to that company, my family now has no money. And for me it's impossible to look past the White House's role in its collapse.
We're also involved in a foreign war that my children's children will be paying for, in which we've bombed innocents (thousands in collateral damage). I think the original plan, to catch Osama Bin Laden, has been disregarded. He has shown no humanistic qualities that I've seen yet (I admit, though, I haven't been paying attention as much as I'm sure TWT has.) He seems ready to sacrifice more lives for his "cause", which seems to be an unworthy one to me.
Gee, I wonder, now that we've bombed the Afghan people back to the stone age, if America is going to set up a satellite government there?:confused:
I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone reading this, but I simply do not understand the appeal of George W. Bush. It seems to me (and I confess that I might be naive about some of these things) that the Bush administration (and many conservatives in general) are more concerned with labeling villains than constructing policies.
..Such as, stealing an election (gotta put up detours and police I.D. checks to keep the blacks away from the polls..can't have them ruining things)
See above post about JFK and Elvis. I'm sorry, but I don't think he stole an election. That, IMO, is a really cheap complaint to have about the man.
equating diversity with low standards
...yet his cabinet is highly diverse.
free enterprise with civil liberty, private schools based on free enterprise, and segregation of blacks with opportunity from white folks.
Where's that last one coming from? And yes, a free market is what this country is all about. Hell, what do you think the purpose of having 50 states is? COMPETITION.
Oh, and attempting to ban fetal tissue research (so the sick will die faster, as God intends them to)
I don't like the idea of human life being created so I can grow myself new parts.
"I will not waste my days in trying to prolong them." -- Ian Fleming.
spending the entire budget surplus on a trillion dollar tax cut for the rich (justifying himself by lamenting about how "if only we knew 2 months ago" - when in fact experts were saying well before the idea was even conceptualized that there wouldn't be a surplus)
For the 10 millionth time: where's the surplus come from? OVER TAXATION. And for the 20 million time: the rich pay more than their share. I shall say it again to drive the point home: the rich pay more than their share. Even with this "tax cut for the rich," they're getting back less than they ought to based on how much they pay in. So, are you gonna stop calling it that, or what? I've said these things before.
stomping out medical marijuana, "cracking down" on drug offenders (because doing things to your own body is illegal),
He has his reasons. And no, I don't agree with all he does. The medical marijuana issue is one I'm conflicted over. I can understand both sides.
supporting guns in church (in case any criminals walk in),
Um, haven't there been two church shootings since he took office?
As far as economics goes, I can't profess to know anywhere near as much as TWT does on the subject, but I'll point to Enron as an example of what I see in Bush's economy. For economic policies, Enron asked for deregulation with no government interference, and got it. On tax policy, they asked for the elimination of the corporate alternative tax, and got it. Enron asked for no caps on electricity prices in California, and got it. Enron and Bush were f--k buddies. And Enron went to sh-t.
That's not true. I did plenty of work on this subject, and that's now how it went down. The reason Enron screwed people over was because their 401 (k)s didn't give them the freedom they needed; which was not Bush's doing. These people were not allowed to control their investments, so when the company sunk, they were stuck. It was too many regulations that hurt those people. Not enough CHOICE.
Thanks to that company, my family now has no money. And for me it's impossible to look past the White House's role in its collapse.
Difficult, perhaps, but not impossible. This is the kind of logic that has people blaming whoever is in office for whatever happens, regardles of what happened before to cause it.
We're also involved in a foreign war that my children's children will be paying for, in which we've bombed innocents (thousands in collateral damage). I think the original plan, to catch Osama Bin Laden, has been disregarded. He has shown no humanistic qualities that I've seen yet (I admit, though, I haven't been paying attention as much as I'm sure TWT has.) He seems ready to sacrifice more lives for his "cause", which seems to be an unworthy one to me.
It's not quite as expensive as you make out...if Bush has his way economically, we won't be paying for it as long as you think. We're going to see the beginnings of a boom shortly, larger than the one we've been saying. Just wait and see. Reagan had the right idea about debt and spending, and Bush seems to have the same handle on things.
Bin Laden may or may not be dead. We may never know. But yes, it's not just about him...though personally I hope dearly we find him in one way or another. I think it would serve as a tremendous symbol.
I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone reading this, but I simply do not understand the appeal of George W. Bush. It seems to me (and I confess that I might be naive about some of these things) that the Bush administration (and many conservatives in general) are more concerned with labeling villains than constructing policies.
The appeal, for me, is as follows: He's down to earth.
He's more honest than our last President.
He seems to have a good, Reaganesque handle on economics.
He's not afraid of a fight; he knows that, sometimes, you've got to make tough choics like this.
He's willing to poke a little fun at his own verbal mistakes.
He's apparently highly prompt in his engagements, especially with the media, whereas the last administration was completely lax in comparison.There's nothing else I can say to convince you, I don't think. I admire the man greatly.
Arthur Dent
03-18-02, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by TWTCommish
See above post about JFK and Elvis. I'm sorry, but I don't think he stole an election. That, IMO, is a really cheap complaint to have about the man.
Actaully, the New York Times, despite misleading readers with the title "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote," reported Gore would have won had a statewide recount been conducted.
Where's that last one coming from? And yes, a free market is what this country is all about. Hell, what do you think the purpose of having 50 states is? COMPETITION.
This is a false dichotomy, which begs the question: Are you pretending that anything other than laissez-faire capitalism is totalitarian communism?
For the 10 millionth time: where's the surplus come from? OVER TAXATION. And for the 20 million time: the rich pay more than their share. I shall say it again to drive the point home: the rich pay more than their share. Even with this "tax cut for the rich," they're getting back less than they ought to based on how much they pay in. So, are you gonna stop calling it that, or what? I've said these things before.
Usually when people speak of the rich paying "more than their share" or getting "less back" they are only referring to the income tax, which is progressive (the more you earn, the more you pay). The opposite case would be sales tax and payroll taxes, which are regressive (the less you earn, the more you pay).
That's not true. I did plenty of work on this subject, and that's now how it went down. The reason Enron screwed people over was because their 401 (k)s didn't give them the freedom they needed; which was not Bush's doing. These people were not allowed to control their investments, so when the company sunk, they were stuck. It was too many regulations that hurt those people. Not enough CHOICE.
Would deregulation have helped Enron? Didn't work for the S&L's, and the taxpayers had to foot the bill.
Difficult, perhaps, but not impossible. This is the kind of logic that has people blaming whoever is in office for whatever happens, regardles of what happened before to cause it.
There's something sinister about that last phrase, "regardles [sic] of what happened before to cause it." Are you BLAMING Clinton?
It's not quite as expensive as you make out...if Bush has his way economically, we won't be paying for it as long as you think. We're going to see the beginnings of a boom shortly, larger than the one we've been saying. Just wait and see. Reagan had the right idea about debt and spending, and Bush seems to have the same handle on things.
I guess we'll see.
He's more honest than our last President.
"I did not have political relations with that man, Mr. Lay."
He's apparently highly prompt in his engagements, especially with the media, whereas the last administration was completely lax in comparison.
He was pretty prompt responding to 9/11, wasn't he? Oh well, since he had an excuse (even though it was a lie...), he can be forgiven. :rolleyes:
Actaully, the New York Times, despite misleading readers with the title "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote," reported Gore would have won had a statewide recount been conducted.
I've heard reports both ways...claiming that both of them would have won. I'm not siding with either of them, because I think there was too much going on to truly know. I'm not arguing in favor of Bush having been some kind of clear winner...but I am arguing against the claim to know that he is truly illegitimate.
This is a false dichotomy, which begs the question: Are you pretending that anything other than laissez-faire capitalism is totalitarian communism?
Of course not. I simply place a lot of emphasis on competition.
Usually when people speak of the rich paying "more than their share" or getting "less back" they are only referring to the income tax, which is progressive (the more you earn, the more you pay). The opposite case would be sales tax and payroll taxes, which are regressive (the less you earn, the more you pay).
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about the fact that, despite earning, say (made up example numbers...I had the actuals with me before, but I don't now), 20% of the money in this country, that same group of people account for 30% of the taxes. That sort of thing. Sure, the rich should pay more; but it's not their job to fund everything else. I'm amazed at the country's current level of taxation.
Would deregulation have helped Enron? Didn't work for the S&L's, and the taxpayers had to foot the bill.
Well, unfortunately, we don't know for sure...but I do think more freedom would've helped, yes.
There's something sinister about that last phrase, "regardles [sic] of what happened before to cause it." Are you BLAMING Clinton?
That "sinister" phrase was not referring to anything at all specific.
"I did not have political relations with that man, Mr. Lay."
I didn't expect you to agree. I think he's more honest, period. Much more. I don't think it's even close...and I think most, as stupid as they may think he is, would agree. If you don't, well, fine by me.
He was pretty prompt responding to 9/11, wasn't he? Oh well, since he had an excuse (even though it was a lie...), he can be forgiven. :rolleyes:
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with what you're referring to...but what I mentioned was actually in reference to statements coming out of the media BEFORE 9-11. The consensus seemed to be that whereas Clinton's administration was reliably late (one reporter allegedly stated that he'd get there 15-20 minutes late on purpose, because he knew he wouldn't miss anything), Bush's was reliably prompt. Could it be wrong? Sure. But I believe it.
sadesdrk
03-19-02, 07:16 PM
I think George W. is our sexiest prez., hands down. :yup:
Sir Toose
03-19-02, 08:15 PM
George is the man...without a doubt. I cannot imagine the state the world would be in after 9/11 if we had a non-committal, spineless jellyfish, sack of donkey crap like the errr gentleman that ran against Bush. It's all about confidence of position and execution of plan and George has it together.
sadesdrk
03-23-02, 07:55 PM
Oh...yeah, and what Matt said, too.:)
Monkeypunch
05-17-02, 01:20 AM
OH MAAAAAN. Did you read the paper? George W. Bush KNEW about the terrorist attacks before they happened. HE KNEW! He received a warning that they were going to hijack some planes and DIDN'T pass it on to anyone who could have prevented it! Justify that!!!
Geez, calm the hell down.
Which "paper" is this, pray tell? :rolleyes: Ya' know, many news organizations have reported that Clinton had numerous opportunities to bag Bin Laden. Does that make it true? No...as much as I dislike Clinton, it doesn't make it true, and I don't consider it to be proof.
For all we know the government gets a terrorist threat every single day, and usually nothing happens. In my opinion, if this is the best you've got against Dubya, ya' ain't got nothin'. :nope:
Originally posted by Monkeypunch
OH MAAAAAN. Did you read the paper? George W. Bush KNEW about the terrorist attacks before they happened. HE KNEW! He received a warning that they were going to hijack some planes and DIDN'T pass it on to anyone who could have prevented it! Justify that!!!
Sorry for the double-post, but I looked into it, and you, my friend, are completely full of it. :D He didn't "know" anything and there's no reason to believe it could've been prevented, necessarily. A quote (from CNN.com):
The White House admitted Wednesday that intelligence reports last summer suggested the United States could be the target of a terrorist attack, perhaps a hijacking.
But officials said nothing in those reports could have prevented the attacks that struck New York and Washington on September 11, killing more than 3,000 people.
Furthermore, here's a transcript of what was said recently: Full Text of Rice Presser (http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53009,00.html).
We're all biased, my monkey-punching friend...but most of us don't let it take control long enough to spit out ridiculous over-the-top accusations like that. :)
Monkeypunch
05-17-02, 01:28 AM
it was in the Boston Globe, actually. and on every news cast on television. And I can't calm down! I am actually pretty angry about this, and I'm sure everyone who lost family on 9-11 is too. should I just accept this? I don't think so. It is my patriotic DUTY to get angry at a man whose oversight killed so many of my countrymen. And blaming it on Clinton is stupid. Let it go, man.
I posted again...you might've missed it.
And I can't calm down! I am actually pretty angry about this, and I'm sure everyone who lost family on 9-11 is too. should I just accept this? I don't think so. It is my patriotic DUTY to get angry at a man whose oversight killed so many of my countrymen.
It's your patriotic duty to do so if it's true. It's not your duty to assume that it is, however, based on reports that don't even support what you're claiming. I'd say your patriotic duty should involve the truth.
And blaming it on Clinton is stupid. Let it go, man.
:laugh: But isn't it our patriotic duty to get angry at a man whose oversight killed so many of our countrymen? Or is that duy put on hold if a liberal's behind it? :rolleyes:
Monkeypunch
05-17-02, 01:34 AM
Hey, I also hate to double post, but honestly, can we really trust someone inside Bush's cabinet to tell us the unvarnished truth? We all try to cover our butts when they're hanging out...:rolleyes:
Oh, and sarcasm is not befitting a self professed "Jedi Master", yoda. I'm off to go punch some monkeys now, my sarcastic, republican friend...
Monkeypunch
05-17-02, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by Yoda
I posted again...you might've missed it.
It's your patriotic duty to do so if it's true. It's not your duty to assume that it is, however, based on reports that don't even support what you're claiming. I'd say your patriotic duty should involve the truth.
:laugh: But isn't it our patriotic duty to get angry at a man whose oversight killed so many of our countrymen? Or is that duy put on hold if a liberal's behind it? :rolleyes:
only if it's also put on hold because a lame duck conservative is behind it!
when i first read the top of page five i was shocked and than Yoda cleared it up. I doubt that Bush had any idea that three planes were going down, i mean you hear of a lot of goverment cover ups but i have my doubts that a PRESIDENT would be able to contain that sort of information, it just seems a bit unlikely
Monkeypunch
05-17-02, 01:38 AM
I never said he contained it. He just never warned anyone.
Sarcasm has its place among all. Yes, even muppetesque Jedi Masters.
Of course everyone tries to cover their a**. The question is this: why do you choose to believe that they're not telling the truth? If you don't believe they are, why would you believe that Clinton was? It seems painfully obvious to me that you're picking and choosing which news reports you want to believe based on your political biases, rather than common sense.
Anyway, all news sources seem to agree that the report, if it's worth noting at all, did NOT provide ANY specifics. That said, your original post is, well, completely ridiculous. You essentially claimed, amid a flurry of exclamation points, that Bush knew exactly what was going down and let it happen. There's no evidence of that at all...and even if some such news outlet was reporting that, why would you believe it? I find it hard to believe that any President would let that happen. You may think Bush is stupid...but he's not a monster.
But, hey, believe what you want. Just don't expect me to stand idle while you make outrageous claims about Dubya...or anyone else, for that matter.
Monkeypunch
05-17-02, 01:49 AM
Last post, I PROMISE. But I'd be pretty pissed if ANYONE had done this. Clinton, Bush, Jesus, ANYONE. It just so happens that it happened on GWB's watch. No I don't think he's a monster, but I think recieving a warning like that, however vague should set off alarm bells in your head and start the ball rolling on ways to avoid it. I don't hate G.W. Bush out of any sort of Bias against the man, but his actions are what bother me. I do not believe what he thinks is right for everyone truly is. I tried to give him the benefit of a doubt when he was first in office, I really did, but his hard right politics are really abhorrent to me. Sorry to start all this, but I am just disappointed in his performance as the leader of our country. Clinton disappointed me too, he had the leader of communist China over to dinner and bowed down to his every whim, like not letting the Dali Lama's presence in our country be officially acknowledged by our government. He did all sorts of things that let me down, that were worse than what they got him on, but I do not think that he was anywhere near the cause of 9-11. in the end, If I come off as biased, yes, I am. But not against all republicans. I actually think Colin Powell would make a great president, and I think I'd vote for Dole if he ran again.
Monkeypunch
06-30-02, 01:11 AM
Okay, here's a weird thing for me to say, but I'm really glad George W. Bush is okay after his trip to the hospital. Am I the only one who was shuddering at the thought of President Cheney? Also, I think I have been wildly uninformed in my opinion of "Dubya." Michael Moore's new book put our old pal in perspective, and now I can't bring myself to hate the poor guy. His cabinet? Sure, those guys I hate big time, except for Powell, but I can't blame George Jr. for anything that has happened.
Is it that you think he's basically useless, and therefore not making any decisions anyway? Personally I think Cheney would be just fine as President...but I think Dubya's probably got a stiffer resolve...which is one of the things I admire most about him. :)
Monkeypunch
06-30-02, 07:29 PM
I give up. I just do. We are never going to see eye to eye on this. I think you should read Michael Moore's book. I know you will not agree with it at all, but It would help you get a more balanced view of the whole situation. Maybe you can suggest some books I can read to give myself a more balanced view of it as well. I just can't fathom the whole republican thing. I'm sure you can't get where I am coming from. I have never been rich or privleged, I've had to work really hard to get what I have, so the whole G.O.P. seems like a bunch of rich folks trying to protect what they have at the expense of the poor. That's just how I see it. How about you? Where do you stand on the political spectrum? Just trying to increase the peace, so to say.
I'm conservative, basically...and neither me, nor my family, is rich. We do alright, and my dad, I'm convinced, will make us wealthy before long (he's a brilliant man on so many levels)...but I grew up in EXTREME poverty, and my parents were both Republican the entire time.
I think we need to set aside our views of the "typical" member of a certain political party. Republicans are not fat, gray men in small libraries drinking brandy and smoking on cigars in pinstripe suits laughing to each other while reading The Wall Street Journal. The stereotype that the Republican Party is that of wealthy folks is ridiculous...especially considering that Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal!
I have no specific book that will balance things. Either you see what works and why, or you don't. We see things diferently. I've seen some of Michael Moore's movie, The Big One, and it's complete and utter bullcrap. Why, pray tell, is wanting to make money a bad thing if you're doing it by providing others with a service or product that they want? Most people get rich by pleasing others in some way, after all.
Here's the conservative ideology (for most conservative) in a nutshell: a small government that only interferes when it is absolutely necessary, low taxes, a strong military, honor in public office, and INCREDIBLY high standards for those that are in power.
Forget what caricatures you may have in your mind about "big oil" or the division of the classes...surely you don't believe that Republicans have set a goal of leaving behind the poor while propping up the rich! Individuals with such disgusting agendas always exist, of course (in all parties and factions, I might add)...but that's not the aim at all. Republicans are fighting for the same sorts of things, in terms of end result, as Democrats...they just want to go about them differently.
The primary principle of smaller government and lower taxes should go without saying...it's what this country was founded on. A large government invites corruption. It's sticking a slice of samali down your pants and locking yourself in a cage with a wolverine...it's NOT going to turn out well, no matter what you do.
Monkeypunch
06-30-02, 08:05 PM
I guess I'm just a cynic. I can't imagine that everything is going to turn out okay. It's human nature to act out of self interest, I guess, and well, every president ever has done so. All the Republicans, all the Democrats, everyone. I used to be an idealist, like you, and well I'm jealous that you can still be that way. I've gotten older and angrier and more powerless as the years go on, and I really don't like the direction the world has gone. Thats just me. And The Big One is not in any way bullcrap as you put it. He's just telling it as it is, and it's not always pleasant to look at. How can you, who as you said came from "Poverty" see all those people put out of work and still say that the companies have the right to put profits over people? That movie put a human face on what would be just facts and figures on paper, and didn't pull it's punches. Did you see the part where after GM closed down it's plant in Flint Michigan they tried to put up an Autoworld amusement park complete with animatronic workers singing a song to the robots that took their jobs? Didn't that affect you even a little? How can you have sympathy for the corporations and not for the workers? It baffles me. The corporations thanked their loyal workers for their years of loyal service by firing them all and moving their business to third world countries where there aren't labor laws and unions protecting the workers interests. Look at anything you own. Was it made in the U.S., or in China by prisoners, or by little kids in Taiwan? Do you even know who made them at all? These people did get rich providing a service, yes, but that's not my point. They got richer by cutting out jobs for hard working Americans, and if that doesn't get your patriotic anger up, I just don't know.
I guess I'm just a cynic. I can't imagine that everything is going to turn out okay. It's human nature to act out of self interest, I guess, and well, every president ever has done so. All the Republicans, all the Democrats, everyone. I used to be an idealist, like you, and well I'm jealous that you can still be that way.
Who said I'm an idealist? I certainly don't recall saying that "everything is going to turn out okay" either.
And The Big One is not in any way bullcrap as you put it. He's just telling it as it is, and it's not always pleasant to look at.
It's not really "telling it like it is" if you're showing one side of the argument, primarily. He went into that fillm trying to make a few companies look bad, and that's what he did.
How can you, who as you said came from "Poverty" see all those people put out of work and still say that the companies have the right to put profits over people?
The right? They have EVERY right. Is it disheartening? You bet...but they have every right in the world. There's no law against being rude...no regulation on being an a**hole.
I grew up damn poor. I remember it...my dad worked two jobs and went to school to support us...and even then we had to scrape by like nobody's business. My grandmother had it worse: she says she remembers living in a chicken coop for a brief period of her childhood.
But you know what? Most companies are not made up of self-interested pricks who care nothing for the troubles of others...but the ones that do stand out, and have low-budget liberal movies made out of them. That is not the norm, however...just as you shouldn't judge an entire group of people based on the actions of one of their own, you shouldn't judge a political party, or all companies, based on the actions of a few Republicans, or a company here or there. Perhaps it would help if it were clarified then what someone says "corporation," they're really referring to a GROUP OF PEOPLE. In the end there's probably a handful of people behind every bad decision...so is the whole concept of a corporation to blame for the decisions those few make that look (and sometimes are) so bad?
How can you have sympathy for the corporations and not for the workers? It baffles me.
Who said anything about not having sympathy? Don't take this the wrong way, but every post of yours seems to reveal more and more presuppositions you've brought to this discussion.
The corporations thanked their loyal workers for their years of loyal service by firing them all and moving their business to third world countries where there aren't labor laws and unions protecting the workers interests.
Well, first off, I think it's important to remember that they gave them the jobs in the first place. When you start a company and give people jobs...you're doing a good thing...you're helping others as well as yourself, usually. Those jobs you give to others, though...they're not the RIGHT of those people. The employees don't have a RIGHT to their jobs...its beause of the company they have them in the first place, but when someone works somewhere for any significant period of time, only to lose their job, people always regard it as some sort of theft, as if they OWN that job. Why?
These people did get rich providing a service, yes, but that's not my point. They got richer by cutting out jobs for hard working Americans, and if that doesn't get your patriotic anger up, I just don't know.
So, they get rich by providing a service...which is basically good for everyone (with some rare exceptions, of course)...they give people jobs in the process...which helps them...then they take away those jobs for their own benefit.
Now, personally, I don't like that last step...but is it WRONG to take away the job when you gave it to them in the first place? Is it necessarily wrong to STOP giving someone something that they want? Isn't it interesting that you're angrier at companies for giving people a job and then taking it away down the line than you are for me, who hasn't given anyone a job in the first place?
Monkeypunch
07-01-02, 05:41 PM
Is there a way to lock me out of this thread for good? I don't want to be allowed to post on here anymore. It frustrates me. We will never agree. I will say something, you will always rip it to shreds and tell me how much of a stupid liberal I am. I will retaliate calling your opinions wrong and it will all get ugly very quickly. We both have strong opinions, and we both have one sided opinions. We will never give an inch on either side. I do not think we should ever talk to each other ever again, in the sake of world peace......:yup:
Ugly? Are you under the impression that I'm somehow upset here, or calling you stupid? I'm not doing either of those, man...I'm sorry if you're upset, but believe me, I'm not. And speak for yourself on "giving an inch" -- I'll give whenever it makes sense to give. :yup:
It's your call, but personally, I hope you continue this discussion where we've currently left off...I don't see it as being even remotely "ugly" at all.
Monkeypunch
07-01-02, 05:59 PM
Wow. I am really impressed. This has been frustrating the hell outta me, and you're enjoying it and being civil! I was trying to keep myself from being thrown off the forums altogether! I have extremely strong political opinions and I admit, I can't always be swayed. I come from an extremely hard headed family. I am unbelievably stubborn.
Here's a weird question. Do you think that our culture in general sort of discourages political involvement? I took a sociology course this semester, and my professor, clearly a Bush supporter, no less, pointed out that in other countries their elections are held on weekends for 2 days, whereas in the U.S. they're held on a workday (Tuesday) for one day only. This seems to unintentionally, or possibly intentionally, make it harder for the working classes to get to the polls. I know this has caused me to miss the election one year, and it ticked me off. Any opinions?
I'm stubborn, too...
Thrown off the forums? Eh? :) I guess you weren't around when a guy named Kevin likened me to a member of the KKK and didn't even have the thread closed, let alone his account banned, eh? :laugh: I'm not mad in the least...we've all got different viewpoints.
Do you think that our culture in general sort of discourages political involvement?
That's an interesting thought...it may be true...but I don't see why. Certainly this country would benefit from more folks taking an interest...however, maybe this way, people are less likely to vote "casually." Apathetic voting DOES tick me off, I admit...
sadesdrk
07-01-02, 06:07 PM
I took a sociology course this semester, and my professor, clearly a Bush supporter, no less... Wait, I didn't read the whole thread, but Monkeypunch, are you a Bush supporter? ...pointed out that in other countries their elections are held on weekends for 2 days, whereas in the U.S. they're held on a workday (Tuesday) for one day only. This seems to unintentionally, or possibly intentionally, make it harder for the working classes to get to the polls. I know this has caused me to miss the election one year, and it ticked me off. Any opinions? That's an interesting observation your Bush supporting sociology professor, made. I would tend to agree with you and say that it does seem like voting is difficult for the working class because of the "One Day Only" system. Not to mention all the complications you go through when you move, get married, blah blah blah. Our voting system is not designed to be easy. :nope:
Monkeypunch
07-01-02, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by sadesdrk
Wait, I didn't read the whole thread, but Monkeypunch, are you a Bush supporter?
Ummm....cough. You don't even wanna get into THAT. But no, I do not support GW Bush at all. It's a lonnnnnnnnnnggggggggg story.:laugh:
sadesdrk
07-01-02, 06:25 PM
That's too bad, but anyways...
I think your wacky Bush Lovin' Prof. made a wise observation. Whaddya think?
Monkeypunch
07-01-02, 06:30 PM
Oh, I totally agreed with the Prof. on that one. Still don't see the appeal of GWB tho'. Way too much of a Leftie for that, as I'm sure Yoda will attest to. Just for equal time, I didn't care much for Clinton OR Gore, either.
firegod
07-01-02, 06:33 PM
I don't like any of them either, but it would be pretty difficult for someone I like to be successful in politics.
sadesdrk
07-01-02, 06:37 PM
In no way am I claiming that Bush is the wisest leader of the pack, but between Bush and Gore, Bush was the lesser of the two evils. Gore is just plain frightening.
I have a hard time with the way this term has been for Bush, there were all those jokes when he first was elected, then Sept. 11th occured, and suddenly... America rallied around him and gave him all this phoney, false support. Now we're right back at the jokes about his speeches and whatnot, it's really a sad state of affairs, in my opinion.
Monkeypunch
07-01-02, 06:58 PM
I'm just afraid of ultra right-wing politics. I really am. The whole war on terror scares the piss out of me. How do you war against such a subjective concept as terrorism? The whole pre-emptive strikes idea is wrong on so many levels. We think we have the right to attack other countries if we think they MIGHT pose a threat, but that doesn't that make us no beter than our enemies? (Really think about this, don't just say "No, because we're AMERICA and we're right," cause that is a really stupid answer.)
Preemptive warfare is inevitable. It doesn't always take a nuclear scientist (though we have those working on such things, too) to figure out that this country or that country is gonna come at us.
We're not right because we're America...we're America because we're right.
sadesdrk
07-01-02, 07:07 PM
Monkeypunch, that's scary in it's self.
I'm glad we're not a nation that's gonna sit around and wait for the next country to get it's collective nerve together and bomb another building over here.
and we're not fighting a concept, we're fighting a real enemy that wants to see America rip apart at the seams.
Monkeypunch
07-01-02, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Yoda
We're not right because we're America...we're America because we're right. [/B]
I almost KNEW you were going to say that. I bet you could clean up selling bumper stickers that say that. Putting this on a non-nationalist level, would it be right for somebody to shoot another person just because they think the other guy has a gun? Now, I'm all for catching Osama, he's a real person, he did something horrible that he must pay for, but to declare war on all sorts of undefined "Terrorists" just because we THINK they might be up to something fishy despite no evidence to back it up...THAT is what I'm against. That makes us look like terrorists ourselves, and could encourage instead of deter other terrorist attacks. There are NO easy answers here, but we seem to wanna find them! We need to use our MINDS, not our MIGHT.
I almost KNEW you were going to say that. I bet you could clean up selling bumper stickers that say that.
It's true, my friend. :) We are who we are today because we've been right in the past, in my opinion.
Putting this on a non-nationalist level, would it be right for somebody to shoot another person just because they think the other guy has a gun?
No...but I don't think that's what's happened. It's more like this: a bunch of guys are standing around. A few guys represent this country, a few more that country, etc. All the guys have weapons. One of the guys whips out a gun and shoots one of our guys. We shoot right back at him and tell the others in his group to turn over any others of theirs who might do the same thing to us.
IE: we're not just thinking "hmm, this MIGHT happen," we're basing this on past mistakes and experiences...and we're not just bombing randomly. We're asking for cooperation on a sensitive matter.
but to declare war on all sorts of undefined "Terrorists" just because we THINK they might be up to something fishy despite no evidence to back it up...THAT is what I'm against
Declaring war on all of those who engaged in terrorist activities is perfectly acceptable. Just because we haven't found them yet, it doesn't mean we shouldn't vow to dispose of them when we do.
There are NO easy answers here, but we seem to wanna find them! We need to use our MINDS, not our MIGHT.
We need to use our minds to decide what to do with our might...which is what I think we ARE doing.
sadesdrk
07-01-02, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Monkeypunch
... but to declare war on all sorts of undefined "Terrorists" just because we THINK they might be up to something fishy despite no evidence to back it up...THAT is what I'm against. That makes us look like terrorists ourselves, and could encourage instead of deter other terrorist attacks. There are NO easy answers here, but we seem to wanna find them! We need to use our MINDS, not our MIGHT. You make it sound like we send out a bunch of blood-thirsty-half-cocked-vigilantes around the world, with loaded weapons, trained to kill without a reason.
Don't you think we have meetings after meetings after meetings of Special Intelligence Agents with legitimate proof of terroist activity?
You'd be surprised of who's spying on who. I think we know more than just "random acts of terrorism". We've got our finger in all the pies, I bet we have lists apon lists of people and groups that we're just itching to catch in the act, but we're waiting for the right moment.
You make it seem like if we catch a dude pissing in the wrong direction, we'll pop him.
I think we're a touch smarter than that. ;)
Monkeypunch
07-01-02, 08:04 PM
Man, now I'm being double-teamed! As for who's spying on who, the FBI is spying on the CIA and Vice Versa, and they're all spying on US, checking out what books we get from the library, what we say on the 'Net (I am so dead:eek: ), tapping our phones, randomly checking everyone at the airport EXCEPT for Arabs because that'd be racial profiling, they checked Al Gore numerous times, (I doubt he's a terrorist) the list goes on and on. I am not saying I have all the answers, but I still BELIEVE that pre-emptive war is just another form of terrorism, only we don't CALL it that. I'm just talking to a brick wall here, though, because most people have traded their brains in for patriotic slogans by now. Yes, I'm a cynic. I just don't want to be part of a war that will stretch out into eternity and could turn our allies into enemies. We've put the entire world on notice, "Don't Mess with the U.S." and it's going to bite us on the @ss eventually, but it may not even be one of the "terrorist" nations that does it.
sadesdrk
07-01-02, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Monkeypunch
I'm just talking to a brick wall here, though, because most people have traded their brains in for patriotic slogans by now. I'll thank you NOT to assume that those who don't think the same as you, have traded in their brains. I have never been a fan of slogans and wouldn't be caught dead with a bumper sticker or something written on my Tee-shirt, think: "I have one nerve left, and you're on it!"
I hate that sh*t, always have always will.
I do think you should move, though. You don't appriciate the blanket of security you sleep under every night. Aint that right Jack?
"You can't handle the truth!"
:D
Monkeypunch
07-01-02, 08:28 PM
I admit it was a rash generalization, and I apologize. As for moving, no way in hell. Screw that "Love it or Leave it," crap. I was born here, and I will die here, but don't expect me to put up with Big Brother breathing down my neck. That's hardly the way to treat your own citizens. It's all like something out of Minority Report. Do you want to lose your basic freedoms just to feel "safe"? Is that an acceptable price to pay? (I just know you will say yes, so I just answered my own question.)
No one wants to lose their basic freedoms...which is why we are NOT losing our basic freedoms. If we're losing any freedoms at all, it's the minute, more trivial ones, I'd say...and certainly not the core rights.
Monkeypunch
07-01-02, 08:32 PM
even the minute ones are important. Like the right to not have the FBI listening to our phone conversations.:yup:
sunfrog
07-10-02, 05:49 PM
Where did this thread come from? You mean I could have been fighting with Tw all this time and didn't know it?
I'll help you MonkeyPunch!
BushLite is the living embodiment of the decay of western civilization! He will destroy everything America stands for!
BushLite is the anti-christ!
Can I cuss in here? Hmm.. let's see.
**** GWB!
XetoxIc
07-10-02, 06:07 PM
all I can say is ..... Keep it up bush..he is doing a fine job, kick some ass take some names!
sunfrog
07-10-02, 06:32 PM
It's people like you who are going to re-elect the worst president in history. Why? Because he' going to win the war on terrorism. So what? I could win the war on terrorism. We have the best army in the world. It's no big thing when we are the most powerful nation. The war on terrorism is bloodlust pure and simple. We already arrested the terrorists responsible. Why are we still killing people? Because GWB wants to kill every last one of them, innocent or guilty. Then we are going to attack Iraq and Iran. Let's be like Hitler why not? Kill all the towelheads yeah! We're sick of them anyway. Bushy is Hitler. When I see what is happening in America today I understand how Hitler came to power. Gradually, with the people's consent.
After the towelhead genocide we are going to start assasinating dictators and anyone else we don't like. Why not, we're sick of dealing with them. It's about time we had a free world. Hey don't we sound like one of those freakin' maniacs that go out and kill millions of people and end up in the history books as mass murderers? We sure do! BushLite must be stopped!
It's people like you who are going to re-elect the worst president in history.
I'd like to point out that extreme viewpoints are rarely right. If I were to talk that way about Clinton, I'd be making a fool of myself. Quite frankly, like Bush or not, I can't see how on Earth you can find a half-decent reason to refer to him as "the worst President in history."
I could win the war on terrorism. We have the best army in the world. It's no big thing when we are the most powerful nation.
I like you, sun, so please don't take personal offense when I reply to the above with one word:
Bullsh*t!
We already arrested the terrorists responsible. Why are we still killing people?
Um, no, we haven't. We haven't apprehend all those who ordered it, funded it, etc. Where've you gotten that from?
Because GWB wants to kill every last one of them, innocent or guilty.
Good God, man, are you serious? It's one thing to not like a person's policies, but you're accusing him of being a cold-blooded murder. There are lots of political figures I don't like, but I believe virtually all of them at least MEAN well in the end. You're taking a very radical stance here.
Bushy is Hitler. When I see what is happening in America today I understand how Hitler came to power. Gradually, with the people's consent.
Is this a bad joke? Hitler wanted to dominate and conquer and murder people for no justifiable reason. We, my friend, were ATTACKED...and we're not conquering anything. We don't want to run these other countries. We're only trying to take out those responsible for this, and ensuring that it doesn't happen again. If you can't see the difference there, I don't know what to say to you.
Bush is gonna be re-elected...I thank God for that. Rail against him all you like, but I'm quite convinced that, barring some truly earth-shaking event, his Presidency (of eight years) will be remembered as one of the greater terms in U.S. history.
sunfrog
07-10-02, 08:29 PM
I'd like to point out that extreme viewpoints are rarely right. If I were to talk that way about Clinton, I'd be making a fool of myself. Quite frankly, like Bush or not, I can't see how on Earth you can find a half-decent reason to refer to him as "the worst President in history."
Easy, like I can say the world's tallest man is the world's tallest man. If there is another man taller he hasn't said anything. If I compare Bushy with all our past presidents he is the worst.
I like you, sun, so please don't take personal offense when I reply to the above with one word:
Bullsh*t!
Hahaha! Name one nation that can beat us? Please, we're fighting people who barely know how to work RPG's and live in caves. They don't even have cars, they have camels. They don't even have pda's with Windows Xp. No third world nation stands even a tiny chance at beating us. It would take Russia or an alliance of France, England, and Germany, plus the Chinese and Japanese and anybody else.
Um, no, we haven't. We haven't apprehend all those who ordered it, funded it, etc. Where've you gotten that from?
Who ordered it? Bin Laddy barely even knew about it. He laughed when he found out. Are you telling me it was planned and funded by 100,000 people?
Good God, man, are you serious? It's one thing to not like a person's policies, but you're accusing him of being a cold-blooded murder. There are lots of political figures I don't like, but I believe virtually all of them at least MEAN well in the end. You're taking a very radical stance here.
Hitler meant well in the end, so did every other mass murder. They didn't do it for the heck of it, each one thought he was in the right just like we do.
Bush is gonna be re-elected...I thank God for that.
BushLite is satan. You know the Bible didn't say anything about the year 2000, somebody made up that number. The Bible says he'll come like a thief in the night. BushLite could still set off armageddon.
Easy, like I can say the world's tallest man is the world's tallest man. If there is another man taller he hasn't said anything. If I compare Bushy with all our past presidents he is the worst.
That's not what I mean. First off, an extreme viewpoint is not one grounded in fact...it's one grounded in opinion...otherwise it's not really extreme. And, as I said, I don't think you have a half-decent reason for talking so lowly of him.
Hahaha! Name one nation that can beat us? Please, we're fighting people who barely know how to work RPG's and live in caves. They don't even have cars, they have camels. They don't even have pda's with Windows Xp. No third world nation stands even a tiny chance at beating us. It would take Russia or an alliance of France, England, and Germany, plus the Chinese and Japanese and anybody else.
I never said we weren't the most powerful...the "Bulllsh*t!" comment was in reference to the absurd notion that you could somehow do Bush's job right now. That's so incredibly outrageous that I don't even know how to begin to criticize it.
Who ordered it? Bin Laddy barely even knew about it. He laughed when he found out. Are you telling me it was planned and funded by 100,000 people?
We're not sure as to all the specifics. And how exactly do YOU know that "Bin Laddy" barely knew about it?
Furthermore, as you'll notice, I mentioned that we're also trying to stop it from happening again...which means taking out people who are basically calling for our deaths every single day. How can you take issue with our combat against those who want to destory us and would gladly attack us again, in the same manner (civilians) if the right opportunity presented itself?
Hitler meant well in the end, so did every other mass murder. They didn't do it for the heck of it, each one thought he was in the right just like we do.
Hitler wanted to conquer and rule other countries. We do not...we simply want those who would do us harm removed. Hitler wanted to wipe out an entire race simply for being of that race...we're responding to a specific kind of act in a specific way...our intentions are on FULL display for all to see...I don't see how you can object to us taking measures to prevent another 9/11.
BushLite is satan. You know the Bible didn't say anything about the year 2000, somebody made up that number. The Bible says he'll come like a thief in the night. BushLite could still set off armageddon.
You know what? That paragraph is going to convince more people of my position than yours...so I'm glad to reproduce it here. :)
Arthur Dent
07-12-02, 01:37 AM
Here's the conservative ideology (for most conservative) in a nutshell: a small government that only interferes when it is absolutely necessary, low taxes, a strong military, honor in public office, and INCREDIBLY high standards for those that are in power.
Do most conservatives believe in a "small govermnet that only interferes when it is absolutely necessary"? None that I know of. But I guess that depends on how you define "conservative." If you mean the Republican Party, then NO. If you mean the "neoconservatives" (e.g. William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, et al.), then NO. If you mean the traditional "movement" conservatives (e.g. Bill Buckley, Robert Bork, et al.), then NO. If you mean the conservatives from the Coulter/Horowitz/O'Rourke school (60's generation and later), then NO. If you mean the Old Right, then yes, but they never defined themselves as "conservative" and never even wanted anything to do with the movement. And it wouldn't have mattered if they wanted in anyway, because Pope Buckley "excommunicated" them (along with Birchers, Objectivists, isolationists, etc.) from the "respectable" conservative movement.
Conservatives WILL usually avocate lower taxes, but that doesn't mean they believe in a "small government."
They believe in a strong military, yes, which is one reason they don't believe in small government. It's ironic, but not at all surprising, to see this kind of doublespeak as in your list.
The last two go together, and once again I disagree. High standards for Democratic officeholders, but incredibly low standards for Republican ones.
They didn't want to hear about the rape allegations against Reagan (who, like Clinton, refused to deny them). They refuse to allow investigation into the October Surprise, even though several foreign leaders claim that Republican operatives DID meet with the ayatollahs while Carter was still in office. They looked the other way when it came to scandals like Debategate, Republican sex scandals (Bob Barr, Helen Chenowith, Henry Hyde), pardons for FBI lawbreakers, pardons for the Iran/Contra felons BEFORE trial (to cover for Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush?), Guatemalan death squads, support for Nicaraguan terrorists and drug runners (Reagan compared them to our Founding Fathers, if you can believe THAT), invasion of Grenada, assasination manuals at the School of the Americas, support of dictators, CIA-backed coups (destroying democracy to "save" it), etc., ad nauseum.
The fact that these people revere Robert Bork (who fired Archibald Cox, for god's sake!) is telling. And what the hell was Bush doing putting perjurer/felon Elliot Abrams on his staff? If Bush's standards are accepted by most conservatives (and I assume that would include you, Commish), then I'd hate to see what your definition of "high standards" is. Your high standards are what I personally would consider low standards.
Furthermore, as you'll notice, I mentioned that we're also trying to stop it from happening again...which means taking out people who are basically calling for our deaths every single day. How can you take issue with our combat against those who want to destory us and would gladly attack us again, in the same manner (civilians) if the right opportunity presented itself?
Who's calling for our deaths? And is that a thought crime or something? One of W.R. Hearst's newspapers said that President McKinley "deserved a bullet." McKinley, of course, was assasinated not long after. Are you mad at Teddy Roosevelt for not declaring war on the Hearst empire? Maybe the U.S. military should have dropped a bomb on San Simeon, since Hearst provided "aid and comfort to" someone who advocated the death of an American president.
Hitler wanted to conquer and rule other countries. We do not...we simply want those who would do us harm removed. Hitler wanted to wipe out an entire race simply for being of that race...we're responding to a specific kind of act in a specific way...our intentions are on FULL display for all to see...I don't see how you can object to us taking measures to prevent another 9/11.
Let me get this straight... an international terrorist group pulls an attack on American soil, so we declare war on the country of Afghanistan, which never attacked us. Pretty strange retaliation. Next up: Iraq. Also did not attack us. Then (forget about catching bin Laden...) Iran, Syria, and perhaps the rest of the Islamic world. This sort of imperialistic hubris is what usually starts World Wars. That it will cause more terrorism is without a doubt.
My advice, if we want to prevent future attacks, is to alter our foreign policy. How about a policy of non-interventionism? It works much better, as history, and even contemporary examples, show: Britain's response to the King David Hotel bombing by Israeli terrorists was to get the hell out of Palestine. England has not had anything like 9/11. Japan, which until recently (post 9/11) had completely renounced the deployment of troops to foreign countries, has not had a 9/11. No country in Europe, or any other country with a similiar way of life as ours, has been attacked in such a manner (which, IMO, disproves Bush's lame theory as to why we were attacked).
Even though it would have been more convenient, geographically as well as strategically, to attack a closer, weaker country, the terrorists did not. I think it's important to ask the "why" questions (as well as the "how") so that we can prevent such attacks in the future.
None that I know of.
Maybe you haven't met the right people. The overwhelming majority of conservatives I know do not fully support the Republican party and have a very basic, simple philosophy and they've stuck to.
They believe in a strong military, yes, which is one reason they don't believe in small government. It's ironic, but not at all surprising, to see this kind of doublespeak as in your list.
Doublespeak? I think not. A strong military does not necessarily mean a large government...just a larger government than you'd have with a weak military.
The last two go together, and once again I disagree. High standards for Democratic officeholders, but incredibly low standards for Republican ones.
I'm getting the strong impression that you are defining conservative beliefs through the Republican party alone.
The fact that these people revere Robert Bork (who fired Archibald Cox, for god's sake!) is telling. And what the hell was Bush doing putting perjurer/felon Elliot Abrams on his staff? If Bush's standards are accepted by most conservatives (and I assume that would include you, Commish), then I'd hate to see what your definition of "high standards" is. Your high standards are what I personally would consider low standards.
I don't know a thing about Elliot Abrams, so I can hardly speak as to his viability in that position. I would wonder, however, as to whether or not such a questionable person is pretty much always present on the White House staff, regardless of the President in office.
Who's calling for our deaths? And is that a thought crime or something?
I do not recall the exact wording, but haven't various extremists made the claim that they have a "duty" to kill Americans?
And no, it's not a thought crime. If a newspaper says the President "deserves a bullet," that newspaper is acting in poor taste. If someone with a history of terrorism or very possible ties to it is calling for our collective deaths, that's another matter entirely.
Let me get this straight... an international terrorist group pulls an attack on American soil, so we declare war on the country of Afghanistan, which never attacked us.
I don't believe we've declared war on Afghanistan.
Then (forget about catching bin Laden...) Iran, Syria, and perhaps the rest of the Islamic world. This sort of imperialistic hubris is what usually starts World Wars. That it will cause more terrorism is without a doubt.
And I suppose your solution is to sit idle? When every option looks like sh*t, it doesn't exactly make sense to complain about the shortcomings of the more appealing ones.
My advice, if we want to prevent future attacks, is to alter our foreign policy. How about a policy of non-interventionism?
So, where would that have left us in WWII? If it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor, would you have advocated neutrality towards Hitler?
You do realize we're screwed eithe way, right? We intervene, and we're apparently interfering...sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. We sit back, we're indifferent and xenophobic, and unwilling to "do the right thing."
Even though it would have been more convenient, geographically as well as strategically, to attack a closer, weaker country, the terrorists did not. I think it's important to ask the "why" questions (as well as the "how") so that we can prevent such attacks in the future.
When you stick your neck out to do what you think you ought to do, people are going to be on your case. The more powerful you become, the more enemies you have, and the harder they're going to come at you.
Now, regardless of whether or not a modified foreign policy will prevent such attacks in the future, we still have THIS attack to deal with, and I don't see it as anywhere near plausible to simply take this punch in the gut and return back to our corner with a vow to sit out the next round.
Arthur Dent
07-13-02, 03:55 PM
Maybe you haven't met the right people. The overwhelming majority of conservatives I know do not fully support the Republican party and have a very basic, simple philosophy and they've stuck to.
Some are, yes. Are most? No.
Those who write for the mainstream conservative magazines, such as The National Review and The Weekly Standard are for the most part, not. I read an incredible editorial by Jonah Goldberg (online editor of National Review), in which he approvingly quoted Reagan's infamous "If it takes a bloodbath…" line, while later in the editorial describing himself as a libertarian! Surely he knows the context of the line, because he acknowledged that Reagan said it in response to student protests. Across the country in Ohio, Governor Jim Rhodes was saying in a press conference that the Kent State protesters were worse than the Nazis (only he used the term brownshirts), Communists and Klansmen (nightriders). A few days later, the National Guard was sent to the campus in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Guardsmen shot at the students for 13 straight seconds, killing four and wounding several others. The FBI investigated the shooting, and found that the protesters had been neither violent nor threatening to the National Guard.
Goldberg certainly knows all this, yet he still claims to be a libertarian? It is to laugh. This guy is like Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen, believing, if not six impossible things, at least two.
But I realize Goldberg is not the only conservative out there. William F. Buckley surprised many people when he came out against the War on Drugs a few years ago. Andrew Sullivan, who is certainly a "mainstream" conservative, has publicy spoken against sodomy laws and for gay marriage. Most conservatives nowadays are against censorship, although it was a Repulican majority which passed the Communications Decency Act (many Democrats voted for it as well, to their shame). Bob Barr is one of the only Republicans in Congress to come out against the new Anti-Terrorism laws and the secret military tribunals advocated by the current administration. He joins many on the Left (as well as the Right) in recognizing that the government needs to be held accountable, and shouldn’t be given a blank check to do whatever it pleases.
But I've read so many more ridiculous Goldberg-esque (and worse) columns that these shining examples do little to convince me that most conservatives believe in small, non-interventionist government.
Since there are no statistics available to back up either of our positions, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point (since I know you'll disagree).
Doublespeak? I think not. A strong military does not necessarily mean a large government...just a larger government than you'd have with a weak military.
Um. In just about any case besides full-blown war, it does. Standing armies during peacetime are explicitly forbidden in the Constitution. And even if not… oh, to hell with it. Why am I even arguing such a trivial point? Just read this revealing quote from Bruce Weinrod as the Berlin Wall was coming down:
"The first thing ought to do is call Margaret Thatcher and try to talk some sense into her. She was recently quoted as saying the Cold War is over. That really is a problem if you have somebody who is tough-minded saying that. She may not understand that, at least with the American public, you have to create a sense of urgency about what we are doing; otherwise, the course of least resistance is followed and funding shifts to social programs. [Emphasis added]"
Sounds like somebody is afraid military funding will be cut. Oh no! We can't have that! The Cold War is over but we're sure to have an enemy somewhere on the planet, and if not, we'll just have to invent one! To quote The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/): "Nobody wins when there's peace."
Of course, I don't pretend that this guy speaks for all conservatives, but a lot of them whined when Clinton cut the military by 2/3 (or something like that). Clinton's joke of a war on Serbia (which I also opposed, BTW) was proof that we obviously didn't need such a huge military to begin with.
I'm getting the strong impression that you are defining conservative beliefs through the Republican party alone.
I'm getting the strong impression that you didn't read my post. I reiterate:
[b]Do most conservatives believe in a "small govermnet that only interferes when it is absolutely necessary"? None that I know of. But I guess that depends on how you define "conservative." If you mean the Republican Party, then NO. If you mean the "neoconservatives" (e.g. William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, et al.), then NO. If you mean the traditional "movement" conservatives (e.g. Bill Buckley, Robert Bork, et al.), then NO. If you mean the conservatives from the Coulter/Horowitz/O'Rourke school (60's generation and later), then NO. If you mean the Old Right, then yes, but they never defined themselves as "conservative" and never even wanted anything to do with the movement. And it wouldn't have mattered if they wanted in anyway, because Pope Buckley "excommunicated" them (along with Birchers, Objectivists, isolationists, etc.) from the "respectable" conservative movement.
My only regret is saying "none…" rather than "most…" I also regret leaving out the Religious Right in my assessment. Otherwise, I stand by my statement.
I don't know a thing about Elliot Abrams, so I can hardly speak as to his viability in that position. I would wonder, however, as to whether or not such a questionable person is pretty much always present on the White House staff, regardless of the President in office.
"Other Presidents did it too," is a poor excuse. I don't know if you're trying to defend your earlier position that you and most conservatives have high standards for those in power. You don't seem to overtly disagree that this is, for the most part, false.
I'm not saying that I have extremely high standards for those in power, because who does? We're talking about politicians, for God's sake. Nothing would get done in Washington because so many people would be investigated, asked to resign, etc. I can see how an idealist might claim to actually have extremely high standards here, but in practice it would probably result in gridlock.
I do not recall the exact wording, but haven't various extremists made the claim that they have a "duty" to kill Americans?
And no, it's not a thought crime. If a newspaper says the President "deserves a bullet," that newspaper is acting in poor taste. If someone with a history of terrorism or very possible ties to it is calling for our collective deaths, that's another matter entirely.
Okay, then, what about these people?
"The current events . . . have caused me to activate my unit. Please be advised that the time for Aryans to attack is now, not later." – Paul R. Mullet, Aryan Nations chief in Minnesota
"May the WAR be started. DEATH to His (God's) enemies, may the World Trade Center BURN TO THE GROUND! ... We can blame no others than ourselves for our problems due to the fact that we allow ... Satan's children, called jews today, to have dominion over our lives." – August Kreis, webmaster of the Posse Comitatus website
"The enemy of our enemy is, for now at least, our friends. We may not want them marrying our daughter, just as they would not want us marrying theirs. We may not want them in our societies, just as they would not want us in theirs. But anyone who is willing to drive a plane into a building to kill jews is alright by me. I wish our members had half as much testicular fortitude." – Billy Roper, deputy of the National Alliance
According to the Historical Dictionary of Terrorism (Sean Anderson and Stephen Sloan), all three of these groups are known terrorist groups or have ties to terrorism. And if we take what they've been saying since September 11 seriously, it sounds like they think it's their “duty” to kill Americans, or at least Jewish-Americans.
Did the "War on Terrorism" miss these groups? Don't "May the WAR be started" and " activate[d] my unit" sound like declarations of war to you? As far as I know, no action has been taken against them. The military is not planning to drop bombs on their bases or homes (with their families being collateral damage, I suppose). And I, personally, do not condone such a course of action. I don't think you do either.
I don't believe we've declared war on Afghanistan.
I apologize. I had forgotten entirely that this was yet another military action completely illegal and unconstitutional. Thank you for reminding me!
And I suppose your solution is to sit idle? When every option looks like sh*t, it doesn't exactly make sense to complain about the shortcomings of the more appealing ones.
No, I support retaliation when we are directly attacked. I'm not a pacifist; hardly anyone is. In this case, we were attacked by a terrorist organization, not a country. I support the arrests and trials of those linked to these crimes.
So, where would that have left us in WWII? If it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor, would you have advocated neutrality towards Hitler?
There are exceptions to any non-interventionist stance. But there has been an alarming trend since WWII to label any two-bit dictator we want to get rid of as the "new Hitler." And we just absolutely [I]must get rid of them, even if that means invading their country, or imposing unilateral sanctions that harm the citizens far more than the dictator.
But if we decide to make friends with some dictator, or he is on the CIA payroll, or Margaret Thatcher has tea with him and calls him a "great man," we will not intervene unless the general public finds out he is a drug dealer (and our leaders, in a Casablanca-esque moment, are "shocked, shocked, to find such activity going on"). And we will not allow Spain to extradite a friendly dictator to put him on trial for killing Spaniards, because hey, he killed less people than Pol Pot, right? (I'd like to see that argument tried in Court sometime: "Your honor, my client may be a serial killer, but at least he didn't kill as many people as John Wayne Gacy. Have a heart!")
You do realize we're screwed eithe way, right? We intervene, and we're apparently interfering...sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. We sit back, we're indifferent and xenophobic, and unwilling to "do the right thing."
Right. Not bombing foreign countries is xenophobic. :rolleyes:
And I do mean non-intervention in terms of force. Foreign Aid is a form of "intervention" (if you want to call it that), that I support. It's quite different than forceful intervention.
Now, regardless of whether or not a modified foreign policy will prevent such attacks in the future, we still have THIS attack to deal with, and I don't see it as anywhere near plausible to simply take this punch in the gut and return back to our corner with a vow to sit out the next round.
I don't see it as anywhere near plausible either, but I don't agree with bombing Afghanistan and now maybe Iraq (and who knows who else) as an appropriate retaliation.
Gah, I'm sick of typing now. Let's just say we disagree on the appropriate foreign policy to take, which wasn't the main thrust of my original post anyway.
Some are, yes. Are most? No.
You've taken a survey?
I guess we run in different circles.
Those who write for the mainstream conservative magazines, such as The National Review and The Weekly Standard are for the most part, not.
They don't necessarily represent the majority of conservatives anymore than Pat Robertson necessarily represents the majority of Christians, or anymore than James Carville necessarily represents the majority of Democrats.
But I've read so many more ridiculous Goldberg-esque (and worse) columns that these shining examples do little to convince me that most conservatives believe in small, non-interventionist government.
Why? It stands to reason that the crazies are going to stand out. It's the same logic that has most liberals unfairly portrayed by Rush Limbaugh, who likes to focus on the wacko cases.
Of course, I don't pretend that this guy speaks for all conservatives, but a lot of them whined when Clinton cut the military by 2/3 (or something like that). Clinton's joke of a war on Serbia (which I also opposed, BTW) was proof that we obviously didn't need such a huge military to begin with.
I'm quite frankly at a loss for words if you're actually suggesting that it's a bad idea to maintain a strong military. Don't you believe "peace through strength" has any merit?
Um. In just about any case besides full-blown war, it does. Standing armies during peacetime are explicitly forbidden in the Constitution. And even if not… oh, to hell with it. Why am I even arguing such a trivial point?
Uh, it does?
Section 10, Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
I thought we had the "Consent of Congress" necessary? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm getting the strong impression that you didn't read my post.
I read it twice in anticipation of you saying that sort of thing.
"Other Presidents did it too," is a poor excuse. I don't know if you're trying to defend your earlier position that you and most conservatives have high standards for those in power. You don't seem to overtly disagree that this is, for the most part, false.
You're right, it is a poor excuse...however, it's not exactly the excuse I was using.
As I said, I'm unfamiliar with Abrams, and I'm certainly not going to take a stance on something I know so little about. The only point I was trying to make (in case there's any confusion here as to that) was that there are always likely to be "questionable" people who can get the job done...which is why I don't think we'll ever see an administration without a few eyebrow-raising folks involved. Yes, this applies to Clinton as well. I'm not affording Dubya alone this kind of slack.
I'm not saying that I have extremely high standards for those in power, because who does?
Um, I do. My family does. Most of my friends do. And regardless of all that, we SHOULD. I don't think it's at all unreasonable or unrealistic.
Nothing would get done in Washington because so many people would be investigated, asked to resign, etc. I can see how an idealist might claim to actually have extremely high standards here, but in practice it would probably result in gridlock.
I'm not claiming that all skeletons need to be dug up...but at the very least, when one is found, hold the person accountable. Apparently even that is too much to ask, though.
Okay, then, what about these people?
There's a crucial distinction here: there's no good reason to afford everyone the rights we've given to U.S. Citizens. If you become an American, you're given certain rights...these do not extend to people who want them only when their own methods are failing.
As for people threatening violence here in America: don't we investigate direct threats? Aren't we monitoring things? I surely hope so. Do these people, more importantly, have a HISTORY of terrorism? That makes quite a bit of difference, in my opinion.
I apologize. I had forgotten entirely that this was yet another military action completely illegal and unconstitutional. Thank you for reminding me!
See above...Section 10, Clause 3. Again, please correct me if I've misunderstood something.
No, I support retaliation when we are directly attacked. I'm not a pacifist; hardly anyone is. In this case, we were attacked by a terrorist organization, not a country. I support the arrests and trials of those linked to these crimes.
To that I must ask two questions:
1 - What do you mean by "trial"? I'll wager you don't particularly like the idea of a military tribunal.
2 - What is to be done if the only way to get to these people is to potentially harm innocent people?
There are exceptions to any non-interventionist stance. But there has been an alarming trend since WWII to label any two-bit dictator we want to get rid of as the "new Hitler." And we just absolutely must get rid of them, even if that means invading their country, or imposing unilateral sanctions that harm the citizens far more than the dictator.
There surely has...but I'm not part of it. I'm using a somewhat extreme example to make a point...nothing more.
But if we decide to make friends with some dictator...
I'm confused. Are you asking me to defend all of these decisions? Or did you just feel the need to vent?
Right. Not bombing foreign countries is xenophobic :rolleyes:
As ridiculous as it sounds, I've had such things bleated at me more than once.
And I do mean non-intervention in terms of force. Foreign Aid is a form of "intervention" (if you want to call it that), that I support. It's quite different than forceful intervention.
Obviously I'm referring to forceful intervention. WHEN do we intervene? And how? What horrible act would have to be committed in front of us before it'd be appropriate for us to step in, I wonder?
Gah, I'm sick of typing now. Let's just say we disagree on the appropriate foreign policy to take, which wasn't the main thrust of my original post anyway.
Type as little, or as much, as you want. :)
Monkeypunch
08-14-02, 12:32 AM
Not trying to start another giant debate here, but I have a question. What do you think about going to war with Iraq? And if you are for it, are you going to join a branch of the military to fight it?
Whoa! The whole point of living in a free country is the right to maintain ideas and opinions that differ from the majority -- and not get bopped on the head. How 'bout Peace in our time"? Or failing that, how about peas in our time? Any port in a storm.
Love to all,
Jozie
P.S. to "most hated man": I don't know that we have to go knock those guys on the head just because we can . . . .
Monkeypunch
08-15-02, 03:40 PM
Actually, I'm totally against going to war with Iraq. I am currently in the service of the US Army, and I will no doubt be called to fight for something I don't believe in. Here's my thing. I am sick of people who have no intention of fighting said war talking about how we should go fight Iraq. It makes them hypocrites in my opinion.
I don't think it makes them hypocrites at all. Only those in battle should be allowed to have opinions? :skeptical:
Monkeypunch
08-15-02, 03:44 PM
Okay, that didn't come out right. Everyone is allowed their opinions. I'm just disturbed by people who are so gung ho about sending me and my brothers in arms to die so callously. If they want war so bad, they should be willing to fight. Just my opinion, which I didn't state very well the first time.....
sunfrog
08-26-02, 04:31 PM
Today Bush Jr. loaded a hundred talibuns in a truck and they all suffocated to death, just like HITLER used to do. Thank you~
:D
Oh yeah Yod, I know what you're going to say. BushLite didn't personally order it, just like Hitler didn't order every single truckload of people to be killed and dumped in a mass grave, but he was still responsible for it.
Now he's trying some backdoor loophole crap so he can bomb Iraq, saying they fired on our troops so we have to attack them. He's so full of evil it's disgusting. What an evildoer of evil he is.
Oh yeah Yod, I know what you're going to say. BushLite didn't personally order it, just like Hitler didn't order every single truckload of people to be killed and dumped in a mass grave, but he was still responsible for it.
Actually that's not what I would have said (if you'd let me, that is). What I would have said (and am saying now, in fact) is that it's not necessarily wrong to suffocate people. It depends on who the people are and why you're doing it. If someone tried to kill my family and I suffocted him in self-defense, I'd feel no real guilt. You act, though, as if the mere fact that people have been killed automatically implies fault!
Now he's trying some backdoor loophole crap so he can bomb Iraq, saying they fired on our troops so we have to attack them. He's so full of evil it's disgusting. What an evildoer of evil he is.
Just keep talkin' man. You're arguing for Bush, not against him, when you use such ridiculously extreme terms.
sunfrog
08-26-02, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Yoda
Actually that's not what I would have said (if you'd let me, that is). What I would have said (and am saying now, in fact) is that it's not necessarily wrong to suffocate people. It depends on who the people are and why you're doing it. If someone tried to kill my family and I suffocted him in self-defense, I'd feel no real guilt. You act, though, as if the mere fact that people have been killed automatically implies fault!
I'm pretty sure those hundred people didn't do anything to me and weren't involved at all in Sept 11th. They were probably home washing their feet that day or something. They didn't even know it was gonna happen. Also, they were p.o.w's. Do you think it's okay to kill p.o.w.'s who have already given up? It isn't self defense if it's after the fact.
I'm pretty sure those hundred people didn't do anything to me and weren't involved at all in Sept 11th. They were probably home washing their feet that day or something. They didn't even know it was gonna happen.
Ummm, a few things.
1 - A person doesn't have to be involved with the attacks of 9/11 to be a horrible criminal.
2 - Who said they did anything to YOU? Are you the only one crimes can be committed against? :rolleyes:
3 - They were "probably" home washing their feet? Got a source, do you? Sounds like pure speculation on your part...and even then, an evil person is evil regardless of whether or not they've taken to cleaning their feet.
4 - What's their knowing or not knowing it would happen have to do with it?
Also, they were p.o.w's. Do you think it's okay to kill p.o.w.'s who have already given up? It isn't self defense if it's after the fact.
Depends on the specifics, I suppose.
sunfrog
08-29-02, 12:39 PM
Here, read this.
Someone else's opinion (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28754)
Sir Toose
08-29-02, 12:46 PM
Hey Sunny!
You know I'm an overall Bush supporter type person but have you seen that guy on Jay Leno that 'does' Bush? OMG, that dude is hilarious!
***Sorry to interrupt... carry on***
Monkeypunch
09-03-02, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Yoda
Actually that's not what I would have said (if you'd let me, that is). What I would have said (and am saying now, in fact) is that it's not necessarily wrong to suffocate people. It depends on who the people are and why you're doing it.
That is just messed up. I have never read a worse sentence in the entire time I've been here. I am so glad I did not say something so purely evil as that. How is it NOT WRONG to suffocate P.O.W.'s?!?
Originally posted by Monkeypunch
That is just messed up. I have never read a worse sentence in the entire time I've been here. I am so glad I did not say something so purely evil as that. How is it NOT WRONG to suffocate P.O.W.'s?!?
Umm, are you telling me there's no circumstances under which you can hold someone prisoner who deserves to be killed? There are no heinous acts they can commit to warrant that? I'm not saying they DID deserve it...I'm saying that I'd like to find out what they've done to potentially merit their death before I go condemning it.
LordSlaytan
09-04-02, 12:31 AM
I think you just like to debate so much, that you'll take any side that's left.;) Feel free to debate that, BTW.:D
Originally posted by LordSlaytan
I think you just like to debate so much, that you'll take any side that's left.
Naw. I'll just take the ones that're right. :D
LordSlaytan
09-04-02, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Yoda
Naw. I'll just take the ones that're right. :D
So you'll take the argument that mass executions of prisoners of war is acceptable? Who's to decide what warrants an execution?
Is fighting on your own side during a war a crime? Punishable by death by the opposition? Should all our POW's be sentenced to a horrible death if they're caught by our own enemies, like the Taliban fighters supposedly were? My God, the Germans were right after all. What they did to the Russians was justifiable if your argument is sound. God, I'm glad I didn't wind up a POW when I was in the Gulf. But wait, if I had been, and Americans found out something like that had happened to me, then there would have been an outcry for blood for the barbaric Iraqis. But it didn't happen to a Yank, Brit, or Aussie. It just happened to 100+ Arabs. No big deal.:(
So you'll take the argument that mass executions of prisoners of war is acceptable?
Depends on the circumstances.
Who's to decide what warrants an execution?
As with any moral issue, we all have our own ideas of what warrants it. This includes you, as well.
Is fighting on your own side during a war a crime? Punishable by death by the opposition?
IMO? No, not usually...but, see, that's the thing: we've got POWs here...but the mere fact that they are POWs does not mean they haven't done things related to the war in some way that are not deserving of death...and that's why I won't pass judgement yet.
Should all our POW's be sentenced to a horrible death if they're caught by our own enemies, like the Taliban fighters supposedly were? My God, the Germans were right after all. What they did to the Russians was justifiable if your argument is sound.
Spare me the melodrama. My statement of "it might not be wrong...it depends" seems to have spurred an entire post from you filled with exaggerations, sarcasm, and rhetorical questions. Of course I never said all POWs should be sentenced to death. I said it depends...I said this SEVERAL times...what part didn't you understand?
LordSlaytan
09-04-02, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Yoda
Spare me the melodrama. My statement of "it might not be wrong...it depends" seems to have spurred an entire post from you filled with exaggerations, sarcasm, and rhetorical questions. Of course I never said all POWs should be sentenced to death. I said it depends...I said this SEVERAL times...what part didn't you understand?
Sometimes melodrama puts forward a point that might be overlooked. Killing of POW's without trial is wrong! Killing POW's in a cruel and inhumane way is even more wrong! Any type of justification is absurd. I've been on the battlefield Yoda, I know what it's like to hate your enemy. Even though I lived that life for a good number of months, I could not see a justification of murdering unarmed prisoners. It's just wrong.
BTW, I apoligize, I jumped the gun. I've gone over the previous posts and found you actually had little to say on this subject. Next time I'll read further back than one page. I would like to point out though, that I often sense hostility when you debate with me. I was not trying to be sarcastic, just deliberate in making a point. If a man was in my home and killed my kids, I would choke the ***** out of them. But if I had been involved in transporting prisoners when I was in the gulf...
Sometimes melodrama puts forward a point that might be overlooked. Killing of POW's without trial is wrong! Killing POW's in a cruel and inhumane way is even more wrong! Any type of justification is absurd.
Suffocation is cruel and inhumane? Aside from a simple pill, it's one of the first methods of death I'd choose, if I had to choose one!
I do not understand the logic here: on the battlefield, its an orgy of violence and all of it is justified...you're fighting people who, at times, perhaps, have committed horrible crimes against the human race...and you're trying to stop them. However, once you've captured them, all of a sudden they must be spared?
I see some of this...I realize that there are plenty of reasons to keep them around...but what if the only other option is to release them? And is there no offense they could've committed shortly before their capture, for example, that could warrant death? I'd never say never, personally.
would like to point out though, that I often sense hostility when you debate with me. I was not trying to be sarcastic, just deliberate in making a point.
There is no intended hostility...I'm not as excited as I sound. ;D Any "hostility" is directed firmly at the viewpoints I disagree with...however, the distinction is hard to make in a setting like this. I've got nothing against you personally whatsoever. :)
LordSlaytan
09-04-02, 11:38 AM
There is no intended hostility...I'm not as excited as I sound. Any "hostility" is directed firmly at the viewpoints I disagree with...however, the distinction is hard to make in a setting like this. I've got nothing against you personally whatsoever.
Whaaaa?!?!?:eek: You were supposed to say something rude or sarcastic! I, um, er, uh...DAMNIT! How am I supposed to act all self-righteous and offended when you deflate me like that! Ho...um..er, you're an ASS! Yeah, that's it, you're an ass! So, um, what have you got to say about that? Huh? :goof:
Sir Toose
12-11-02, 11:00 AM
From the Federalist:
"Thus far, the reputed idiot Bush has graduated from Yale and
Harvard, made a stack of cash in the oil industry, become the
first consecutive-term governor of Texas, defeated a dual-term
VP for the presidency, and led his party to [November 5th's]
extraordinary triumphs. Let his opponents keep calling him stupid;
if they do, within five years Bush will be King of England, the
Pope, and world Formula One motor racing champion." --Tim Blair,
Australian journalist
The dummy!
:rotfl:
The last sentence was the topper. Hilarious.
Piddzilla
12-11-02, 12:11 PM
It's quite interesting to see how widespread and intense the focusing on the person, not the politics, are amongst americans. Personally, I don't give a damn about if Bush is Einstein reincarnated or an ape disguised as an... eh... ape. :D (Sorry, couldn't help myself...). To me the politics and ideology he represents is just backwards and will IMO lead to increased misery for a lot of americans and increased insecurity for the rest of the world. I would like to think that Bush's and his party's intentions are good, but in the longrun the result will be devestating. The problem is that a lot of people - and powerful people too - benefit from this politics and they will make sure he stays in power.
But I think one can sense a growing dissatisfaction with the Bush administration and its arrogant approach. The number of americans supporting an invasion of Iraq, with or without UN, are decreasing (if I'm correctly informed) and it was no coincident that Jimmy Carter received The Nobel Peace Prize. And in due time, when domestic politics start to fail and cause serious damage, I think americans will have had enough. Bush knows this and needs to win a war.
r3port3r66
12-11-02, 12:23 PM
Thanks MonkeyPunch, your dedication to this country, your willingness to give your life for it, gives me hope that gas prices will remain low, gas guzzling SUV's will remain in production, and I can continue to use the carpool lanes!
Seriously, thanks for fighting. I'm sorry that it has to be a "war" that really isn't a war, that really is a war. Just be safe.:yup:
Sir Toose
12-11-02, 12:50 PM
Pidd
you are right of course.
There is too much focus on the individual versus the ideology. I always laugh when people call it Bush's war...as if he single handedly could declare war (Technically I guess he could, but he's getting approval from everyone and their dog).
Also, "The Bush Economy" or "The Clinton Economy" and so forth...as if we had kings versus democracy.
Piddzilla
12-11-02, 07:12 PM
Yeah, to me it's so obvious that Bush is a president that very much depends on his staff and advisers. In fact, I suspect that a man like Colin Powell has as much to say in the "Iraq situation" as the president himself. And thank god for that. Bush's quality is that in tough situations he has the ability to lead (just like Guilliani), which is why he became so immensly popular after 9-11. But when it comes to "everyday politics" he, and most other politicians worldwide, seems to lack the ability to engage the people. But still riding on the wave of popularity from 9-11 he managed to mobilize enough voters to win the elections for the Republicans. They know now though that that wave will have ebbed away in time for the next presedential election, and that's why I think they're anxious to "win a war". Bush needs a new wave to surf on.
My american girlfriend told me when I asked her if she voted in the last election and who she voted for: "No, I'm not voting for any of those clowns". And she normally never misses an election and always vote for the Democrats. That pissed me off and also made me depressed. It's not about politics, it's about congressmen and senators, or whatever they're called, and what kind of a person they are. And since the Democrats don't have a pin-up boy like Bush, they were bound to lose. It seems like the Democrats knew this too which perhaps was the reason why they didn't have much to put up against the "Bush Mania". The voters who voted for the republican politicians didn't vote for the politics they represented, in many cases they probably didn't vote for the republican politicians "because of the person" either. They voted for Bush.
John McClane
07-20-06, 02:31 PM
George is the man...without a doubt. I cannot imagine the state the world would be in after 9/11 if we had a non-committal, spineless jellyfish, sack of donkey crap like the errr gentleman that ran against Bush. It's all about confidence of position and execution of plan and George has it together.Yea, I don't think anyone else could have gotten us in a mess bigger then George. :D Don't get my wrong, I would've voted for Bush because he was the less stinky bowl of *****; Lewis Black. :) But I sorely disagree with many of his social reforms. And as for the war in Iraq, we should have invaded a target that was more of a threat but, I do understand just why we're there. I may not agree with it but, I'm damn well going to support it.
I think my opinion is the same as from many other German people. I don't like Bush. And his visit in Germany last week was very expansive. Our nation had to pay 20 Millionen Euro because of this idiot.
Our nation had to pay 20 Millionen Euro because of this idiot.
Really? Who made them?
adidasss
07-20-06, 05:09 PM
And as for the war in Iraq, we should have invaded a target that was more of a threat but,
France?:D
I do understand just why we're there. I may not agree with it but, I'm damn well going to support it
huh? yeah, when i don't agree with something i support it too....what the bloody 'ell are you on about??
John McClane
07-20-06, 06:03 PM
France?:D
huh? yeah, when i don't agree with something i support it too....what the bloody 'ell are you on about??If I had 100% grasp of what you just said I might be able to reply better. Forgive me if I don't do it that well.
The reason I support something I don't agree with it, mostly only wars, is because if you don't support something there's a much higher risk that it'll fail.
adidasss
07-20-06, 07:21 PM
If I had 100% grasp of what you just said I might be able to reply better. Forgive me if I don't do it that well.
The reason I support something I don't agree with it, mostly only wars, is because if you don't support something there's a much higher risk that it'll fail.
well, the first part was me wondering what OTHER country was a bigger threat...
second part you understood...( i don't think i write like froggy, my posts are perfectly understandable...aren't they??)
your position is a bit daft johny-boy, just because you oppose something, and perhaps voice you opposition, doesn't mean the war endeavor is going to fail ( at the off chance your government actually listens to what you have to say )....retreat is not failure....it's a victory....you save lives that way, american lives...ya dig?
Nah, i'd say JM's making sense there. The mistake's been made. Gotta make the best of a bad mess (http://wwww.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EGUA-6RTKH5?OpenDocument). And the admin probably would have to withdraw if public opinion turned completey. And withdrawing would almost certainly make things plummet further. (Altho we could all go back and try and sort Afghanistan out, in a meaningful way ;)).
(Ain't i a great cheerleader ;))
adidasss
07-20-06, 07:49 PM
Nah, i'd say JM's making sense there. The mistake's been made. Gotta make the best of a bad mess (http://wwww.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EGUA-6RTKH5?OpenDocument). And the admin probably would have to withdraw if public opinion turned completey. And withdrawing would almost certainly make things plummet further. (Altho we could all go back and try and sort Afghanistan out, in a meaningful way ;)).
(Ain't i a great cheerleader ;))
yeah well, in all honesty, the americans have done all they should have ( in my humble opinion )...why the hell should they stay and have more soldiers die because muslims don't appreciate "freedom"? i say get the hell outta there and leave them to fend for themselves....:-/
nations should take control over their destiny....not wait for others to take care of business for them....and if they wanna anihilate each other over bull**** religious differences...so be it...
edit: "In another case reported a homosexual man was allegedly victim of “honour crime.” It was reported in the press that the man’s father was released without trial once he explained that he had hanged his son after discovering that he was homosexual. "
and ain't it just a peachy little culture the americans are trying to preserve?
John McClane
07-20-06, 07:58 PM
your position is a bit daft johny-boy, just because you oppose something, and perhaps voice you opposition, doesn't mean the war endeavor is going to fail ( at the off chance your government actually listens to what you have to say )....retreat is not failure....it's a victory....you save lives that way, american lives...ya dig?Haha! You saw what happen to 'Nam after we pulled out. That's a great definition of success. No, we're already there and we're going to finish the job. Otherwise, all our men died for nothing and that, I couldn't stand for.
John McClane
07-20-06, 08:05 PM
Sorry for the double post.
nations should take control over their destiny....not wait for others to take care of business for them....and if they wanna anihilate each other over bull**** religious differences...so be it...Haha, too bad America didn't do that. We sat around waiting for help from tons of countries for our fight for freedom. Tons and tons of countries do the same so I don't quite agree with that one.
adidasss
07-20-06, 08:17 PM
Haha! You saw what happen to 'Nam after we pulled out. That's a great definition of success. No, we're already there and we're going to finish the job. Otherwise, all our men died for nothing and that, I couldn't stand for.
sorry friend, but your contrymen died fighting for the "liberation" of a nation that hates your guts...they did in fact die for nothing...but that was a choice they made....
Sorry for the double post.
Haha, too bad America didn't do that. We sat around waiting for help from tons of countries for our fight for freedom. Tons and tons of countries do the same so I don't quite agree with that one.
you're talking about the war against Britain ( i'm never quite sure how this is spelled..:-/) or the war in Iraq?
and please don't start with the whole " america only wanted to free the iraquee ( oh bloddy hell, YOUR LANGUAGE SUCKS! ) people" thingamajig because i'm gonna get seriously pissed off....
yeah well, in all honesty, the americans have done all they should have ( in my humble opinion )...why the hell should they stay and have more soldiers die because muslims don't appreciate "freedom"? i say get the hell outta there and leave them to fend for themselves....:-/
For a start, coz they've created the situation - through both the pre-intervention sanctions and the intervention itself. (With the help of the UK, i should add).
Saddam's iron-first, repulsive as it was, held everything together. Currently it's unravelling.
And i've always felt it would resolve a lot of 'blood debts' (on the part of both the US and the UK), if something even vaguely resembling peacefulness and prosperity could be set up there.
Definitely ain't holding my breath tho.
nations should take control over their destiny....not wait for others to take care of business for them....and if they wanna anihilate each other over bull**** religious differences...so be it...
Hey geez, whatever the ineptitudes of the Nato intervention in your conflict, they didn't just leg it once the fighting had been bombed to a stop did they? And as ugly as the comparable divisions you guys had were (are?), they weren't preceeded by the type of infrastructure destruction that Iraq's been through. Iraq needs more time. (For the long-shot possiblity of leaving something other than a blood-bath behind)
edit: "In another case reported a homosexual man was allegedly victim of “honour crime.” It was reported in the press that the man’s father was released without trial once he explained that he had hanged his son after discovering that he was homosexual. "
Yeah, well that's gonna stop if the occupiers pull out ;):rolleyes:
and ain't it just a peachy little culture the americans are trying to preserve?
Oh, there's a lot of ugliness going on - both in 'local' and 'occupier' senses.
At the end of the day tho, the Bushies will fight tooth and claw to stay. Part of this has been about establishing a base of operations, i'm sure. Hell, they've only just pulled out of Germany ;)
adidasss
07-20-06, 08:33 PM
[QUOTE]For a start, coz they've created the situation - through both the pre-intervention sanctions and the intervention itself. (With the help of the UK, i should add).
Saddam's iron-first, repulsive as it was, held everything together. Currently it's unravelling.
And i've always felt it would resolve a lot of 'blood debts' (on the part of both the US and the UK), if something even vaguely resembling peacefulness and prosperity could be set up there.
Definitely ain't holding my breath tho.
yes well, moral responsability be damned, i would put american lives first ( and i'm totally disregarding the latter part of your post here, about setting up a base la-di-da )...something the admin doesn't seem to care too much about....
plus, the people of Iraq *blatantly avoids spelling it the other way again* would like nothing more than the americans getting the hell outta there....but i suppose their wishes were insegnificant from teh get go....:-/
Hey geez, whatever the ineptitudes of the Nato intervention in your conflict, they didn't just leg it once the fighting had been bombed to a stop did they? And as ugly as the comparable divisions you guys had were (are?), they weren't preceeded by the type of infrastructure destruction that Iraq's been through. Iraq needs more time. (For the long-shot possiblity of leaving something other than a blood-bath behind)
golgoty golg....remember this, when talking about the situation in the balkans, be very careful because it's a super touchy subject when i'm concerned....so let me set you straight: NATO didn't interveen in croatia, we fought and won on our own ( with no help from the UN either ). also, the destruction in Iraq isn't even comparable to the destruction that happened in Bosnia and Croatia ( 4 years of war compared to a limited intervention that lasted a couple of months )...and we are working on rebuilding the country on our own...
Yeah, well that's gonna stop if the occupiers pull out ;):rolleyes:
sooo....i say we occupy every muslim country in the world...
John McClane
07-20-06, 08:45 PM
sorry friend, but your contrymen died fighting for the "liberation" of a nation that hates your guts...they did in fact die for nothing...but that was a choice they made.....How do you know this? I really hope you're not one of those people that believe everything you read and hear in the news.
[QUOTE=Golgot]
yes well, moral responsability be damned, i would put american lives first ( and i'm totally disregarding the latter part of your post here, about setting up a base la-di-da )...something the admin doesn't seem to care too much about....
Oh believe, they care. About the geopolitical stuff. The morality business always trails in at the end - no matter what their feelings on the subject.
plus, the people of Iraq *blatantly avoids spelling it the other way again* would like nothing more than the americans getting the hell outta there....but i suppose their wishes were insegnificant from teh get go....:-/
Well, yes, and yes, in many ways. But if the US is still struggling to spend the ear-marked reconstruction money to this day, what will happen if they not only pull out, but take their money with them?
It's not like there's a coherent set-up waiting to even make sense of the viable infrastructure, and society, that does still exist.
golgoty golg....remember this, when talking about the situation in the balkans, be very careful because it's a super touchy subject when i'm concerned....so let me set you straight: NATO didn't interveen in croatia, we fought and won on our own ( with no help from the UN either ). also, the destruction in Iraq isn't even comparable to the destruction that happened in Bosnia and Croatia ( 4 years of war compared to a limited intervention that lasted a couple of months )...and we are working on rebuilding the country on our own...
Yeah i know mate. I dived in. And my knowledge is limited on this n'all. But i felt alright to an extent, coz you're diving in a bit on the Iraq stuff too.
One point still stands tho. You haven't been ****ed-over infrastructurally for nigh-on a decade like the Iraqis have. That makes a huge difference.
It just doesn't make it 'better'.
sooo....i say we occupy every muslim country in the world...
Hey. Gay-pride marches have strict boundaries ;):rolleyes:
adidasss
07-20-06, 08:54 PM
How do you know this? I really hope you're not one of those people that believe everything you read and hear in the news.
sure i am....i only really watch non-american news sooo....you know...they might be more objective....i seem to recall and interview or two with some american soldiers that wanted to get the hell outta there because they just didn't want to die for people who hate them...something they didn't understand...
John McClane
07-20-06, 09:00 PM
sure i am....i only really watch non-american news sooo....you know...they might be more objective....i seem to recall and interview or two with some american soldiers that wanted to get the hell outta there because they just didn't want to die for people who hate them...something they didn't understand...OK, so we are to assume that they all hate us because two America soldiers said they did? Wow, and like all these videos of the actual Iraqis praising the Americans just get like what? Burned? But no, we can trust those two Americans because they had a bad experience with some terrorists. Great thinking. :rolleyes:
adidasss
07-20-06, 09:01 PM
Well, yes, and yes, in many ways. But if the US is still struggling to spend the ear-marked reconstruction money to this day, what will happen if they not only pull out, but take their money with them? It's not like there's a coherent set-up waiting to even make sense of the viable infrastructure, and society, that does still exist.
well, if they keep governing their country, they'll never learn how to do it themselves now will they? i don't really care...if they wanna kill themselves, i say let them....only make sure to take their oil first....because they were too stupid to keep it....*is ruthless*
Yeah i know mate. I dived in. And my knowledge is limited on this n'all. But i felt alright to an extent, coz you're diving in a bit on the Iraq stuff too.
was i? i don't think i stated anything completely false....
One point still stands tho. You haven't been ****ed-over infrastructurally for nigh-on a decade like the Iraqis have. That makes a huge difference.
they were ****ed over because of their own actions....i don't see why anyone else should be responsible for that....and i know the infrastructure is gonna be rebuilt not because of the benevolance of others, but because others are gonna make a few billion dollars off of it...
Hey. Gay-pride marches have strict boundaries ;):rolleyes: no idea what you just said...*is dense*:)
adidasss
07-20-06, 09:06 PM
OK, so we are to assume that they all hate us because two America soldiers said they did? Wow, and like all these videos of the actual Iraqis praising the Americans just get like what? Burned? But no, we can trust those two Americans because they had a bad experience with some terrorists. Great thinking. :rolleyes:
you don't happen to watch fox news do you?
well, if they keep governing their country, they'll never learn how to do it themselves now will they? i don't really care...if they wanna kill themselves, i say let them....only make sure to take their oil first....because they were too stupid to keep it....*is ruthless*
was i? i don't think i stated anything completely false....
I think you might be ignoring the pre-war effect in Iraq.
There's two issues:
Imagine if, rather than being in Croatia finding its feet, you were part of Yugoslavia, struggling to do the same.
And then imagine you'd been economically sanctioned and subject to airstrikes for around a decade.
That's more the situation Iraq is in. And then add oil ;)
they were ****ed over because of their own actions....i don't see why anyone else should be responsible for that....and i know the infrastructure is gonna be rebuilt not because of the benevolance of others, but because others are gonna make a few billion dollars off of it...
Nah, for the above reasons, i disagree. What's going on there is majorly due to turmoil that was previously set in motion by outside forces, and then clumsily not-even-vaguely addressed by the invasion.
no idea what you just said...*is dense*:)
I was alluding to the Polish march recently, which only vaguely-just-happened. And then involved flying bricks ;)
And by default, was saying that cultural change doesn't always spread easily in confrontational circumstances. And often involves flying masonry ;)
was saying that cultural change doesn't always spread easily in confrontational circumstances. And often involves flying masonry ;)
:laugh:
For someone who is so smart you sure are funny.;)
John McClane
07-20-06, 11:27 PM
you don't happen to watch fox news do you?Unlike you, no. :p ;)
No, I know plenty of soldiers actually. Ever talked to one before? Ever seen a video of a family of Iraqis pretty much worshipping the soldiers? From you comments above, I'd think hardly. But seriously, just talk to tons of soldiers face to face and they're more then likely going to tell you good things. Unlike that crap the news keeps shuffling under your nose.
@ 7thson His whole visit. The security. They had to shut down a town and a lake. Something like this. We need the money for other things than George Bush.
adidasss
07-21-06, 06:26 AM
Unlike you, no. :p ;)
No, I know plenty of soldiers actually. Ever talked to one before? Ever seen a video of a family of Iraqis pretty much worshipping the soldiers? From you comments above, I'd think hardly. But seriously, just talk to tons of soldiers face to face and they're more then likely going to tell you good things. Unlike that crap the news keeps shuffling under your nose.
that's funny actually, because in this case i wasn't reffering to the news...i was talking about neutral ( if there is such a thing ) documentaries ( french, english, german...one of the privelages of living in a small country, we get shows from all over the world )...you say you've talked to plenty of soldiers...are you saying they're happy to be there? and if you talked to them back home, do they wanna return to that peachy land filled with honey and flying unicorns? can i take i wild guess here and say they'd rather stay at home...safe and sound ,rather than risk being killed for dubious reasons? are the soldiers you've talked to really ready to die fighting for the freedom of a nation they have nothing to do with?
depending on where those soldiers are, of course there are varying degrees of hate...i'm sure the hatered is much more apparent in Baghdad..that's where the soldiers i saw were stationed...
one thing i neglected to comment on was your reason for opposing the war in Iraq...i got a feeling that the only reason you thought it wasn't right is because you had something more importaint to do...( what exactly that is, you neglected to say )...as if you don't really care that the invasion and it's supposed reasons were bull**** and a pretty clear cut violation of the international law...
adidasss
07-21-06, 06:52 AM
[QUOTE]I think you might be ignoring the pre-war effect in Iraq.
There's two issues:
Imagine if, rather than being in Croatia finding its feet, you were part of Yugoslavia, struggling to do the same.
And then imagine you'd been economically sanctioned and subject to airstrikes for around a decade.
That's more the situation Iraq is in. And then add oil ;)
i'm not ignoring the pre-war situation, i'm saying they caused it by themselves....regardless of who was running the nation, it's citizens are responsible for it's destiny..plenty of nations have overturned dictatorships, some with blood and violence, some peacefully....if the iraqis couldn't do that, it's nobodys fault but their own...if they were unsatisfied and downtortten, then do something about it! you think the international community was for our seccesion?? nope...if i recall correctly, brittain and france were very much opposed to it...did we care? no, cause the time had come for our freedom...result, a 4 year war, thousands of kiled, billions of dollars of damage to the infrastructure and economy...( and no oil either to help us rebuild )
how about the situation in serbia, very much like the situation in Iraq...more than a decade of sanctions, a NATO intervention, yet they managed to overthrow Milošević by themselves and are slowly rebuilding their country....
the situation in Bosnia, the international community is actually slowing down the process of selfgovernment, result, status quo that noone is satisfied with, incapability of making their own decisions....
Nah, for the above reasons, i disagree. What's going on there is majorly due to turmoil that was previously set in motion by outside forces, and then clumsily not-even-vaguely addressed by the invasion.
how do you adress something like that? animosity that ( may or may not be for the most part casued by brittain ) is there, it's taken roots and i really don't see what others can do to fix it....
I was alluding to the Polish march recently, which only vaguely-just-happened. And then involved flying bricks ;)
And by default, was saying that cultural change doesn't always spread easily in confrontational circumstances. And often involves flying masonry ;)
that particular aspect of their culture will never change....in many ways, the muslims are centuries behind the west as far as civil rights are concerned...forcefully trying to change them will only piss them off even more....( unlike what's happening in east europe for example ,where the pressure of the EU is actually forcing the countries to change more rapidly than they ever would by themselves, especially in the civil rights department )
muslims are a funny little category of people....i know this is gonna saw aweful, but i'm sick of the west trying to change them only for them to hate us in return...they're obviously not feeling the whole "all human beings are equal" philosophy....and i know we can't exactly allow mass execusions a-la Taliban ( for looking at someone the wrong way ) go on....i dunno...a lot of mixed feelings here....i don't know what the right course of action is....let them learn by themselves ( and i'm soo patronising right now ) or what?....:-/
John McClane
07-21-06, 02:23 PM
that's funny actually, because in this case i wasn't reffering to the news...i was talking about neutral ( if there is such a thing ) documentaries ( french, english, german...one of the privelages of living in a small country, we get shows from all over the world )...you say you've talked to plenty of soldiers...are you saying they're happy to be there? and if you talked to them back home, do they wanna return to that peachy land filled with honey and flying unicorns? can i take i wild guess here and say they'd rather stay at home...safe and sound ,rather than risk being killed for dubious reasons? are the soldiers you've talked to really ready to die fighting for the freedom of a nation they have nothing to do with?
depending on where those soldiers are, of course there are varying degrees of hate...i'm sure the hatered is much more apparent in Baghdad..that's where the soldiers i saw were stationed...
one thing i neglected to comment on was your reason for opposing the war in Iraq...i got a feeling that the only reason you thought it wasn't right is because you had something more importaint to do...( what exactly that is, you neglected to say )...as if you don't really care that the invasion and it's supposed reasons were bull**** and a pretty clear cut violation of the international law...Documentaries find people that promote their views. You, a movie person, of all people should know this.
Second, we didn't need to go into Iraq but, our new war on "terror" needed someone to come down. It was a poor choice going into Iraq when there are much more dangerous people that could have been taken down. We just put ourselves in an obligation for the next several years; it was stupid.
Urban Cowboy
07-21-06, 03:16 PM
you think the international community was for our seccesion?? nope...if i recall correctly, brittain and france were very much opposed to it...-/
I know this may be getting a bit off topic but France was actually for it, seeing as they were rivals of England and the more would weaken the empire.
Sexy Celebrity
07-21-06, 03:26 PM
May I chime in for a moment? I have some Bush love to express.
I just got back from the greatest body massage of my life - given by president/miracle worker George W. Bush!
I mean... WHEW! My shoulders have never felt better. I've been rubbed and stretched so good, so pleasingly good... I tell ya, if those hands are shaping America, BOYYYYYYY is America getting shaped! I can hear the moans of my great country right now. "Oooooohhhh.... AHHHHHHHH!" it says.
http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/0b/05/20060721094209990009
To get your own personal massage from Georgie, like this German Chancellor is, call 1-800-RUB-BUSH. Adults, 18+
adidasss
07-21-06, 04:30 PM
I know this may be getting a bit off topic but France was actually for it, seeing as they were rivals of England and the more would weaken the empire.
say what? buddy...i was talking about Croatia...:)
adidasss
07-21-06, 04:31 PM
May I chime in for a moment? I have some Bush love to express.
I just got back from the greatest body massage of my life - given by president/miracle worker George W. Bush!
I mean... WHEW! My shoulders have never felt better. I've been rubbed and stretched so good, so pleasingly good... I tell ya, if those hands are shaping America, BOYYYYYYY is America getting shaped! I can hear the moans of my great country right now. "Oooooohhhh.... AHHHHHHHH!" it says.
http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/0b/05/20060721094209990009
To get your own personal massage from Georgie, like this German Chancellor is, call 1-800-RUB-BUSH. Adults, 18+
it sorta looks like he's choking her....:-/
Sexy Celebrity
07-21-06, 04:45 PM
Oh, no. It's a MASSAGE! Can't you see the smile on her face? She's a very pleased customer.
king_of_movies_316
11-03-08, 04:50 AM
I don't mind George. I mean he is not the greatest president, but he is very underrated.
People are like "Bush is retarded" and that he is an idiot. But he actually is very smart.
Some of his decions have been stupid, but i think if 9/11 didn't happen during his reign, people would still like him.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.