The Clockwork Mansion

http://www.slate.com/id/2173965/?GT1=10436

they gave liberals and conservitives a test where they press a button when givin one signal but not to when givin another. conservitives made more errors so it was concluded that liberals see the need for change more redily than conservitives.


not sure if i agree it corolates with brains, but i think liberals do see the need for change faster. though this may be because conservitives are as stubborn.

take 2.

I dunno, I'm not happy with the status quo at all, but my solution involves large-scale tear-out and rebuild of large parts of the government.(the Colorado public school system, for example, is more religious indoctrination facility than education center, and far less effective than just letting kids figure things out on their own.)

Quote from: Raist on September 18, 2007, 01:33:19 AMI conclude the test was designed by libs.

To quote Coca Cola: They're not that smart, and they're not that dumb.

The study would seem to show something else, namely that muscle memory and reaction time are different for the two groups.  I've seen terrible studies before.  I'm no neurologist, so I have no clue if this is right or wrong, but it doesn't seem generalizable to me.

And I'm a Libertarian, so I have no stake in this, except to say that both sides are dumb.

you can delete that quote of mine.  First version of my post sucked, so I replaced it with something less stupid.

[edit]Zorro, you can...nevermind.  Comment, stupid, fixed.[/edit]

Quote from: Raist on September 18, 2007, 01:33:19 AM
Actually, I read in an article that Conservatives have been behind nearly all of the leading political movements, including rights for homosexuals.(which I won't get into, since it's a really touchy topic, and I don't want to offend some particular members of this board.)

I conclude the test was designed by libs.

True.

The same way tests are designed to always say whoever designed it is smart.

This is why the Idea that became FedEx was given a grade of "C"

Thing you have to admit in Business and the Military is that you either succeed in business or not and in the Military you succeed or die.

Academics hate both business and the military because it shows them to NOT be so intelligent EVERY SINGLE DAY!

Quote from: Zorro on September 18, 2007, 01:45:48 AM
Academics hate both business and the military because it shows them to NOT be so intelligent EVERY SINGLE DAY!

You mean I don't have to be perfect to succeed?

Man, is that a load off.  I guess sometimes, "Good enough" really is?

Quote from: Zorro on September 18, 2007, 01:45:48 AMThis is why the Idea that became FedEx was given a grade of "C"

Actually, that has more to do with the American Letter Mail Company and the fact that FedEx had no legal authority to operate until 1979, when the USPS allowed private carriage of extremely urgent material.

Are you seriously trying to say FedEx isn't a success and the guy who thought it was a "C" idea isn't still grading papers?

You are proving my point.  FedEx wins, professor loses.

I think this thread has a very bright future in store for it.

I'm a Republican.  I have a degree in biology and work in a renowned research facility in one of the best hospitals in the country.

Tom Cruise is a liberal.  He believes in Scientology.  Nuff said.   >:3

ooo, slapped -down-.

Your sample size is a tad small, though, Alondro. Statistically, you're on thin ice....

Politics.
My solution to every political problem is Kill It With Fire.

Quote from: Jim Halisstrad on September 18, 2007, 07:44:15 AM
Politics.
My solution to every political problem is Kill It With Fire.

I think Bush used that, too, didn't he?

No, no, no. 
That's the complete and total mismanagement leading us into a quagmire strategy.
It's close to the Kill It With Fire strategy, only with a higher Fail/Fire ratio.

Shawn Hannity is an evil right-wing radio talk show host.  He can manage his affairs extremely well, support his argument with facts and figures, and now hosts TV shows as well as radio.  His audience is quite large and he never resorts to childish taunts and name-calling.

Rosie O'Donnel is a mega-liberal who rants wildly, decalres everyone who isn't like her 'delusional', and manages to constantly keep losing her talk shows because she doesn't know when to keep her mouth shut.  She's also mentioned breaking her own bones deliberately when she was young.  All she ever does is respond with childish taunts and name-calling.

Nuff said.   >:3

Quote from: Zorro on September 18, 2007, 02:24:50 AMAre you seriously trying to say FedEx isn't a success and the guy who thought it was a "C" idea isn't still grading papers?

No, just that FedEx is much more complicated than an idiotic professor.

The Postal Service still goes around occasionally demanding to see if the mail you send through FedEx is really urgent.  They did that to Equifax, and determined that some of the mail that they sent was not urgent, and fined them $30,000 for using FedEx instead of the USPS.

Quote from: superluser on September 18, 2007, 08:45:45 AM
The Postal Service still goes around occasionally demanding to see if the mail you send through FedEx is really urgent.  They did that to Equifax, and determined that some of the mail that they sent was not urgent, and fined them $30,000 for using FedEx instead of the USPS.

And boy does that ever prove how power-hungry a government-controlled entity becomes!  Who cares if it's urgent?  Some people would just rather be sure their mail actually makes it to its destination without being stolen or looked through by some sociopathic deviant who only got his postal job because his uncle works there.  I had several things vanish in the mail and decided enough was enough.  Now I only use the USPS for things of little to no value or importance... like my taxes.   :P

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on September 18, 2007, 07:47:51 AM

Quote from: Jim Halisstrad on September 18, 2007, 07:44:15 AM
Politics.
My solution to every political problem is Kill It With Fire.

I think Bush used that, too, didn't he?

No, no, if he had done that, Iraq would be a glass bowl rather than a quagmire.

Quote from: Valynth on September 18, 2007, 10:04:49 AM
No, no, if he had done that, Iraq would be a glass bowl rather than a quagmire.

What, he wasn't using Friendly Fire there? ;-]

Quote from: Alondro on September 18, 2007, 07:55:27 AM
Shawn Hannity is an evil right-wing radio talk show host.  He can manage his affairs extremely well, support his argument with facts and figures, and now hosts TV shows as well as radio.  His audience is quite large and he never resorts to childish taunts and name-calling.

Rosie O'Donnel is a mega-liberal who rants wildly, decalres everyone who isn't like her 'delusional', and manages to constantly keep losing her talk shows because she doesn't know when to keep her mouth shut.  She's also mentioned breaking her own bones deliberately when she was young.  All she ever does is respond with childish taunts and name-calling.

Nuff said.   >:3

Here you point to a politial conservitive


Here you point to hollywood.

Truth is there are just as many articulate fact pushing liberals as conservitives.

Both democrats and republicans have the wrong idea... a two party system is flawed in so many ways and needs to be changed. I belive in a multi party system so that a impartial person gets in the office.
Personally when i look at the republicans makeing claims about the democrats the democrats typically start morphing into how the republicans view them and vice versa untill you get two equally useless parties that are more conserned with getting in the whitehouse and beating the other party than actually DOING A GOOD JOB! The sad part is America will never get rid of this system because the population too entrenched in it to even try to change it.

Quote from: lucas marcone on September 18, 2007, 07:57:59 PMBoth democrats and republicans have the wrong idea... a two party system is flawed in so many ways and needs to be changed. I belive in a multi party system so that a impartial person gets in the office.
Personally when i look at the republicans makeing claims about the democrats the democrats typically start morphing into how the republicans view them and vice versa untill you get two equally useless parties that are more conserned with getting in the whitehouse and beating the other party than actually DOING A GOOD JOB! The sad part is America will never get rid of this system because the population too entrenched in it to even try to change it.

You, sir, win at this thread. *face-in-paw* George Washington himself said, after his time as President was completed, that America should never fall into a party system, along with one other thing that I completely forget right now. Looks like he was right, though. Party loyalties before personal beliefs, corruption and greed, one certain Republican presidential candidate's disbelief of evolution and belief of "devolution" into monkeys (see Senate). In fact, this seems like the right place to post these two cartoons:

THE WHOLE WORLD IS GOIN' TO WAP-UH-JAW!! (http://www.current.tv/pods/supernews/PD06121)
...and...
Reagan Reagan! (http://www.current.tv/pods/supernews/PD06197)

Quote from: lucas marcone on September 18, 2007, 07:57:59 PM
Both democrats and republicans have the wrong idea... a two party system is flawed in so many ways and needs to be changed. I belive in a multi party system so that a impartial person gets in the office.
Personally when i look at the republicans makeing claims about the democrats the democrats typically start morphing into how the republicans view them and vice versa untill you get two equally useless parties that are more conserned with getting in the whitehouse and beating the other party than actually DOING A GOOD JOB! The sad part is America will never get rid of this system because the population too entrenched in it to even try to change it.

Show me an impartial person and I will show you a person in a coma.

Seriously, have you ever seen these mysterious "multi parties?"  Yes, yes I have and I can tell you that 90% of them are fruit-loop crazy.

And honestly, the only way to get into the Whitehouse is by claiming to do a good job which is, in fact, the only thing you CAN do to get into the WhiteHouse.

Even in a multi-party system you have party loyalties conflicting with "what's right."  Hell, if anything in a multi-party system you have ten times as much bureaucracy as you would in a two party system with all the same problems.

Whats more, the parties never remain the same as you've noted.  They change when their constituents decide to change themselves.  Have we always had republicans and democrats?  No.  We had a whole melody of various parties in America, it is just more efficient to draw and maintain a single line rather than then different lines that form shapes with one side always touching a different party while touching all parties.  Hell, just imagining it makes my head spin.

That also leaves way for more corruption as a singl party will generate multiple "branch" parties to gain seats in the government all the while having each party strive for the same goal.

When I say impartial I mean independant. Some of us actually have some decent ideas. I just prefer not to have ANY party loyalties so that I could do my job to my fullist.

I'm a registered Republican, and I've done some things for the Republican party, but I vote Republican because they happen to agree with my ideals.  I'd vote for a Democrat if I thought they were going to pass laws the way I think they should be done, but I've yet to see that happen.

Honestly, the Republican party is a bit liberal for my tastes right now.  I'm getting quite dissatisfied with how a lot of things are being done in Washington.

In short, I've concluded the following.

1: ALL governments are inherently corrupt.  No exceptions.
2: No government(anarchy) is worse than any government, including totalitarian fascism.(actually, most anarchies devolve into totalitarian fascist states.)
3: Therefore, choose the lesser of two evils, and have a government, rather than no government.
4: While you need it to keep the peace, your government will be evil.  No exceptions.
5: Evil things should have as little power as reasonably possible.  The Articles of the Confederation are an excellent example of this, but they were maybe a little too weak.
Conclusion:  Have a government, but force it to work with both hands tied behind it's back and in shackles, and make sure the rules are simple so that everyone can tell when the government gets out of line.

A statistically significant number of tornadoes strike in the bible belt, should that mean god hates religious people?

People conducting polls/experiments, repeat after me:

correlation does not equal causation. :B

First of all it isn't "conservitives" it is spelled conservatives!

Mainly almost all out current problems are a result of all the GROOVY new Liberal Ideas from The '60s' Man!

Drugs?  Yes they existed but they didn't really get started until the hippies were "Expanding Their Minds" through ODing and killing lots of their musicians.  Lead directly to Cocaine, crack wars and crystal meth problems.

That is just one 1960s success stories of liberalism, there are others like losing a war for no military reason and creating racial divisions merely to virtually enslave certain parts of the population for votes.

This is all more or less about doing unproven things because your Grandparents were obviously stupid evil white people!  Stupid fucks should have never bothered to build a nation!  THINK OF THE SQUIRRELS!  THINK OF ALL THAT LACK OF MALARIA!

AFRICA is the best way to live!  But AMERICANS are too STUPID to appreciate.....EBOLA!!   :mwaha

Actually, my grandparents were all finished procreating by the time the '60s rolled around.

My parents weren't too happy living through them, though.  They were glad when the 80s finally rolled around.

My mom hated the 60's.  She thought all the pot-heads and free-love crap was moronic.  My dad, I've come to learn, was creeping intot he drug scene from peer pressure back then, but then I always knew he was weak-willed and cowardly.  That's why I control the home now!   >:3 

First my home... then the WORLD!!  The new Earth-wide supreme Empire of Decharlakstan!   :mwaha  And I will create mutant blobish things in war machines that will be my merciless soldiers to dominate the universe!  The Decharleks!   :mwaha

we did poorly because the communist countries in that era were war machines bent on spreading their form of government.


were doing poorly in Iraq because we can't become a war machine bent on spreading our government with the constitution in place. that's why bush want's to use it as toilet paper.

Quote from: lucas marcone on September 19, 2007, 10:54:21 PM
we did poorly because the communist countries in that era were war machines bent on spreading their form of government.


were doing poorly in Iraq because we can't become a war machine bent on spreading our government with the constitution in place. that's why bush want's to use it as toilet paper.

*laughs*  Oh Lucas, Lucas, Lucas.  We can become a war machine just as easily as they can.  Just look at World War 2 Japan and the fact we've outlasted the major communist countries.

The key problem with spreading our type of government is that it requires the acceptance of the people, and most people in the middle east want a totalitarian dictatorship.  Of course, each group wants it's own dictator and thus violence ensues until all other sides except the dictator's are suppressed and/or killed off.

*nods*  Yup, that's why we should just shoot em all and let God sort em out!  *Charles likes the solution Marge Simpson's crazy uncle came up with!*   >:3

Let me rephrase that. We can't become the RIGHT kind of war machine. in order to pacify the middle east we need to bomb the crap out of it and even when all the middle eastern muslims are dead we'd still be wadeing throug the muck of PR and the rest of the muslim population globaly, and frankly killing all muslims in the middle east is morally wrong. That's the same damn thing they're trying to do to the jews and the christians. The best ,and right, thing we can do is pull out and let them establish what ever the hell they want. If they live in peace after that fine, if they attack us and fund terrorism again time to go back in.

What the muslim extremeists need to realize is that Osama is going to burn in "the thousand hells" for what he did on September eleventh because he declared war on an innocent people.(I'm not totally clear on this let me catch some rest before i clarify on the Osama thing.)

I'm a moderate, so I can just sit here and consider both sides a little silly in their reasoning. *munches popcorn*

However, a couple things on the subject that this thread has stumbled upon.
The issue of the war is, indeed, a mess. Our president screwed up. As for how to fix it though, that's tricky. Keeping our troops there isn't going so well because for one thing we really don't have the manpower for it. Correct me if I'm wrong (and it's quite possible) but a majority of the power that the US army has is in the form of munitions and armor and suchlike; we can equip and train our soldiers really well, we just don't have enough of them to occupy anyone else. However, up and vanishing could introduce its own problems because we don't know it wont all go wahooni shaped immediately after. Just look at the last time we didn't clean up after ourselves in the middle east. That's why this whole thing is such a problem; the president got us into something that is extremely hard to get out of.
Right, said my bit. Back to the sidelines.

the US has an all-voluntary military, and there's no draft in sight, no matter what the media may be saying.  If we've still got a soldier shortage, then something is being done very not right.

Also, as you may recall, the so-called "WMDs" which we invaded Iraq over were found... in a locker in the UN building in New York.  The inspectors had brought them back without even thinking about it, and then promptly forgotten about them.  They had to shut down and evacuate something like a quarter of New York City for half a day to get them out safely.

Biological and chemical weapons.  Nasty stuff.  Exactly what we'd been looking for.

... and provided by the USA to Saddam in the 1980's. Not that I'm pointing fingers or anything....

Quote from: Raist on September 20, 2007, 07:59:45 PMAlso, as you may recall, the so-called "WMDs" which we invaded Iraq over were found... in a locker in the UN building in New York.  The inspectors had brought them back without even thinking about it, and then promptly forgotten about them.  They had to shut down and evacuate something like a quarter of New York City for half a day to get them out safely.

Biological and chemical weapons.  Nasty stuff.  Exactly what we'd been looking for.

Source please?

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on September 20, 2007, 08:47:43 PM
... and provided by the USA to Saddam in the 1980's. Not that I'm pointing fingers or anything....

Provided to checkmate Iran in the Iraq - Iran war.

BUT...We also collaborated with the Soviet Union against the Nazis too as did all the allies in WWII.

One enemy at a time, and NO NATION makes perfect decisions, just the best achievable at the time it is made.

Quote from: superluser on September 20, 2007, 09:20:34 PM

Quote from: Raist on September 20, 2007, 07:59:45 PMAlso, as you may recall, the so-called "WMDs" which we invaded Iraq over were found... in a locker in the UN building in New York.  The inspectors had brought them back without even thinking about it, and then promptly forgotten about them.  They had to shut down and evacuate something like a quarter of New York City for half a day to get them out safely.

Biological and chemical weapons.  Nasty stuff.  Exactly what we'd been looking for.

Source please?

you can not have missed the big fuss around Labor Day this year.  It was all over the radio.  Especially Republican talk radio.

and yeah, as Zorro said, we've had a bad habit of giving good stuff to our allies, and then having them become our enemies the following decade.

Quote from: Raist on September 21, 2007, 12:55:50 AMyou can not have missed the big fuss around Labor Day this year.  It was all over the radio.  Especially Republican talk radio.

So eleven years ago, we found WMDs in Iraq.  That justifies us invading then four years ago (that's 7 years since they were found) how?

wasn't that why we went after them?

It was the more recent inspection when they were found, and it was the more recent inspection for which we invaded.

Or perhaps you think the Iraqi citizens were better off under a tyrant who threw people into wood chippers because they voted against him.

bah smoke mirrors and pandering. i still say that the government never found the WMDs and just told the news to say we did.


in more recent news colbert had a guest that was trying to prove the usa is becomeing a fashist state. she actually made a very convinceing arguement wich really made me sad for our future.

Quote from: lucas marcone on September 21, 2007, 02:36:50 AM
bah smoke mirrors and pandering. i still say that the government never found the WMDs and just told the news to say we did.


in more recent news colbert had a guest that was trying to prove the usa is becomeing a fashist state. she actually made a very convinceing arguement wich really made me sad for our future.

You would say there were no WMDs in Iraq if Saddam himself rose from the grave, knocked on your door, and told you himself that he'd been stockpiling the most grievous weapons ever imagined so that he could attack the United States.  you would say there were no WMDs if you were marched over to Iraq and shown chemical drums full of biological and chemical weapons.  You would say the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam's rule if you saw the entire population beheaded for sneezing at the wrong time.

I say this because I've seen it before.  This is what we in the industry call "Blind faith."  Faith should never be blind.  If it hasn't been tried by fire, then it's worthless.  Faith is a good thing to have, whatever your faith happens to be in.  Blind faith is always a bad thing to have, and part of our development as human beings should be a striving to eradicate blind faith from our minds.

That is why I cast my lots with the Conservative party rather than the Liberal.  Time and time again, I've seen the Liberals of America cast blind faith in anything that isn't Conservative, while the conservatives work hard to make sure our what we're putting our faith in is tried and true.

Note I did not say Republicans and Democrats.  This is because the leadership in the Republican party, as stands, is almost more liberal than the Democratic party has ever dreamed of being.

As for my faith, I'll say this much.  I will never put my faith in humanity, because the only thing they've reliably shown themselves able to do right is royally screw their situation up more than it ever was before.

and you would belive that it raining spanish dabloons and chocolate if you saw it on the news and bush SWORE it was true. point being none of us can prove they were there. he same way we cant prove they wernt. when i watched the news they were always comeing up empty and they KNEW where they took them next but never actually got them.

Quote from: lucas marcone on September 21, 2007, 02:54:35 AM
and you would belive that it raining spanish dabloons and chocolate if you saw it on the news and bush SWORE it was true.

Hardly.  The difference between a comic book and a news broadcast is that the comic book at least admits that it's fiction.

I don't watch the news anymore.  It's a load of sensationalism and hardcore leftist propaganda, and that's including Fox news's accused right-wing conspiratism.

Also, Bush has shown himself to be a weak leader, and is one of the Republican leadership who I said was too far liberal for my liking.

Quote from: Raist on September 21, 2007, 01:34:59 AMIt was the more recent inspection when they were found, and it was the more recent inspection for which we invaded.

More recent insp...You mean the `96 inspection?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083000978.html

Quote from: Raist on September 21, 2007, 01:34:59 AMOr perhaps you think the Iraqi citizens were better off under a tyrant who threw people into wood chippers because they voted against him.

Right.  Because we kill them so much more lovingly.

Saddam killed somewhere between 70 and 125 people per day when he was in power (http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html).  In the 1300 or so days from the start of the invasion up until the most recent report from the Iraq Health Ministry, there have been somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 civillian deaths.  There have been 4,000 coalition soldiers killed, 7000-10000 Iraqi combatants (http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html), 11,000 insurgents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_insurgents_killed_in_Iraq) (can't find a real source for this, sorry), and possibly others that I'm missing.  That adds up to 90-129 people per day.

Way to go killing more people than Saddam!

(anyways, the Iraq war probably is a bit off the topic, so I don't think I'll say any more on this)

Edit: OK.  One more.

Quote from: Raist on September 21, 2007, 02:50:40 AMYou would say there were no WMDs in Iraq if Saddam himself rose from the grave, knocked on your door, and told you himself that he'd been stockpiling the most grievous weapons ever imagined so that he could attack the United States.

Actually, it seems that Saddam was pretty much playing coy about WMDs because Saddam was paranoid that if any other country ever found out that they didn't have them, Iraq would be wiped off the map.

I understand we have a LOT of people in Iraq.  What are they doing? building infrastructure.

The majority of our effort isn't spent pacifying anything, our occupying force has patrols, true, but they're acting more like police than military at this point.

I don't think you can just stand there and point your finger at this and say that it's all bad or all good.  There's a lot of bad there, true, but there's also good being done, and I think that the good being done is at least balancing the bad that's going on, and more than likely trumps it.

Personally, I think we shouldn't have gone to Iraq a second time, we screwed up.  But! But I think we're there now, and I think that any sort of pulling out, if not done delicately, with much forethought and precision, will do as much, if not more, damage than did our initial invasion and occupation efforts.

It's all well and good to say we should have done this or that... If the WWI allies hadn't screwed up with the Treaty of Versailles in the first place... if England hadn't screwed up the middle east after WWII in the first place... If the French hadn't screwed up in Vietnam in the first place...  If Bush hadn't screwed up invading Iraq in the first place.

It's all well and good to say what we should or should not have done, and the ones responsible should certainly be appropriately punished, but allowing what we've screwed up in the past to dictate, without any input from the present, what we will do is a recipe for further screwups.

Quote from: Reese Tora on September 21, 2007, 03:57:39 AMPersonally, I think we shouldn't have gone to Iraq a second time, we screwed up.  But! But I think we're there now, and I think that any sort of pulling out, if not done delicately, with much forethought and precision, will do as much, if not more, damage than did our initial invasion and occupation efforts.

Consensus is good.  I agree with this.  If we don't have a slow withdrawal plan that has the option to send troops back in if things start to get really bad, it will be worse than...just about anything short of a land war in Asia (which that technically is, anyway).

Also, I think we need to build a time machine and burn the cocktail napkin the British used to draw the borders of the Middle East.

Quote from: superluser on September 21, 2007, 04:27:48 AM
Consensus is good.  I agree with this.  If we don't have a slow withdrawal plan that has the option to send troops back in if things start to get really bad, it will be worse than...just about anything short of a land war in Asia (which that technically is, anyway).

Er? A war in Iraq is a land war in Asia?

... when did Iraq get moved to the east by, oh, about 4 or 5 countries?

Quote from: Alondro on September 18, 2007, 07:35:21 AM
I'm a Republican.  I have a degree in biology and work in a renowned research facility in one of the best hospitals in the country.

Tom Cruise is a liberal.  He believes in Scientology.  Nuff said.   >:3

Please don't lob us Libs in with Scientologists.  I would get aggressive about it, but the mere idea is ****ing depressing, and makes me want to start crying.  Those people are completely despicable. 

(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c357/stigma666/idt20040223daydream.gif)



make you feel any better goatmon?

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on September 21, 2007, 08:09:22 AMEr? A war in Iraq is a land war in Asia?

... when did Iraq get moved to the east by, oh, about 4 or 5 countries?

Asia Minor (the classical "Asia") would have included most of Turkey and bits of the Middle East, so it seems odd to call Iraq European.  And it also seems odd to call anything east of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles something other than Asia.

We have an alternative source of energy.  It's called nuclear power.  If we relied on it for as long as the uranium sources would last, we could spend that time trying to come up with something else that would hopefully work for the forseeable future.

Oh wait.  Libs hate nuclear power too.

Or we could put up wind tubines in Massachusetts! 

Oh wait.  Edwards doesn't want his view spoiled.

Meh.  I still say the best way to solve humanity's problems is to exterminate the humans.   >:3

Quote from: Alondro link=topic=3380.msg146407#msg146407
date=1190419261Oh wait.  Libs hate nuclear power too.
...
Oh wait.  Edwards doesn't want his view spoiled.

Actually, quite a few liberals really like nuclear power.

And one man does not a political party make.

The way things usually work, one person almost always is held up as the party standard, either to magnify or to demonify.  It can be a different person at different times, but the method is the same.  Place one member on a pedestal and shine all the lights on him/her. 

And that's how the media manipulates the public.

But I too know how to play that little game.   >:3

Anyway, the acceptance of nuclear energy is filtering into the moderates for the time being.  But I have a feeling the current Democratic Party will be far more swayed by the radical left when it comes time to actually build a nuclear plant, especially if they already have the Presidency.  Then they don't have to pretend to care about being sensible anymore and can focus on their true goal of solidifying their power base with a socialist society pandering to the greedy and lazy public who want everything handed to them, further enlarging the pool of people trapped by 'learned helplessness' who will always vote for them because they're incapable of survival without massive government support to make laws to tell them not to set themselves on fire and put warning labels on knives instructing "Do not insert into head, chest, or any other body part" because they have no common sense of their own.

Plus, they must make sure all the children are 'safe', so all physical activity will be banned in schools, lest a child get a scraped knee and the parents sue.

And let us not forget the mandated 'equality' that will be pushed into every aspect of life.  But not for the betterment of society, no no.  The trend will be as it has been for the past 20 years, to bring everyone down to the lowest level and make sure no one feels bad about themselves.

And then, once the 'living document' standard is fully applied to the Constitution and it is ammended into a massive volume of legal jargon which only the political elite and their teams of lawyers can possibly interpret, everyone shall be made completely equal in all things... and we shall have Harrison Bergeron.

The 'universal health care' system is the real start to socialism.  No matter what 'Hillary Care' promises, the REAL cost cannot even be calculated.  I work closely with the medical field and no one I know is happy about the prospect of that program.  It is already quite clear that it will be a disaster for the medical field in the US.

And by the way, who's going to pay for it?  Tax the rich some more?  Ha ha ha!  They'll just leave for Mexico or China, where they can bribe officials for a whole lot less than the taxes they're currently paying.

We've gotten into the trouble we're in by relying on the government too much.  Every government run program in existence is bloated, backwards, inefficient, overly costly, filled with nepotism, and rife with corruption.  And now people want to give the government absolute power over their health care system?  Well, stupid is as stupid does.

Quote from: superluser on September 21, 2007, 04:27:48 AMConsensus is good.  I agree with this.  If we don't have a slow withdrawal plan that has the option to send troops back in if things start to get really bad, it will be worse than...just about anything short of a land war in Asia (which that technically is, anyway).

I've actually heard more than one columnist advocating leaving and letting Iraq fall apart because it's too late to save it now.

That definitely doesn't sound right.

Quote from: Alondro on September 22, 2007, 09:26:11 AMWe've gotten into the trouble we're in by relying on the government too much.  Every government run program in existence is bloated, backwards, inefficient, overly costly, filled with nepotism, and rife with corruption.  And now people want to give the government absolute power over their health care system?  Well, stupid is as stupid does.

As I and my coworker put it:
me: who wants the health care system run by the people running the IRS?
him: who wants the health care system run by the people running the DMV?

There is a basic reason socialized medicine with never work.  You're still paying for it, but this time you don't have a choice on how it's spent.  Oh, and you're obligated to pay for it even if you don't use it.  Or they throw you in jail.

Quote from: Valynth on September 22, 2007, 01:58:00 PMThere is a basic reason socialized medicine with never work.

Seems to be working pretty well in some countries. (NOTE: THIS EXCLUDES CANADA!  NO ONE LIKES CANADA'S NATIONAL HEALTH CARE.  NOT EVEN 58% (http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/05/27/health_survey020527.html) OF CANADIANS!)

But there's a difference between `works' and ``is a good idea.''

I used to think that it was a bad idea, since I didn't trust big government to control that sort of stuff.

But now I'm not so sure.  Is Big Pharma really any better?

Mail system, airlines, medicine, computers, agriculture, nearly everything tends to both run cheaper and provide better service when released to the capitalist public.  Barring total brainwashing, customers vote with their dollars, and they vote for the service they think is best.  If that means I'm paying a thousand dollars to get halfway-decent doctor seervice, or that I have to buy my meal at the airline for $15 on top of my $30 plane tickets, as opposed to paying nothing and ending up performing my own appendectomy or getting ever-famous Airline food for free on top of my $100+ ticket, then that sounds good to me.

In short, I'd rather have a megacorporation running nearly anything than let the government handle it, because the government's response to financial shortages is to tax the public more.  If the megacorporation starts overpricing or handing out bad service, then at best, they lose some of those much-needed customers.  At worst, they get slapped with a collective lawsuit, and blasted from the face of the planet by legal fees and reparations.

In every event I've seen, giving the government more power is invariably a really bad idea.  Hey, Communism seems like a GREAT idea when you look at it, but when you go to implement it, it tends to collapse, and not like a tower of kindergarten blocks, either.  More like Bikini Atoll when it got hit with the nuclear bomb tests.

Quote from: Raist on September 23, 2007, 08:19:24 PMMail system, airlines, medicine, computers, agriculture, nearly everything tends to both run cheaper and provide better service when released to the capitalist public.

We have independent confirmation of all but medicine.  Specifically, the NHS system (everybody gets a decent public health care system with the option to pay for private insurance on top of it) in the UK seems to be pretty comparable if not better than ours.

Quote from: Raist on September 23, 2007, 08:19:24 PMIn short, I'd rather have a megacorporation running nearly anything than let the government handle it, because the government's response to financial shortages is to tax the public more.  If the megacorporation starts overpricing or handing out bad service, then at best, they lose some of those much-needed customers.

I really, really wish I could agree with you on this.  It fits in so well with my Libertarian ideology, but it just isn't correct.  The megacorporation's response to financial shortages is to lie to their customers, file for bankruptcy, sell off the services that their customers might want, and jack up rates. (remember HealthSouth?  What about AIDS drugs?  In some parts of the world, they're very well-priced.  Not in the US.)

Basically, health care is so messed up in the US that I don't see how the government could possibly make it any worse.

"The 'universal health care' system is the real start to socialism.  No matter what 'Hillary Care' promises, the REAL cost cannot even be calculated.  I work closely with the medical field and no one I know is happy about the prospect of that program.  It is already quite clear that it will be a disaster for the medical field in the US."

(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c357/stigma666/idt20041019taxes.gif)


i would rather pay out the ass with taxes than let our government get bogged down with debt.

Quote from: lucas marcone on September 24, 2007, 12:02:25 AM
i would rather pay out the ass with taxes than let our government get bogged down with debt.

The problem with that argument is that the government (-any- government) will take that as licence to do both. :-/

People are a problem.

I'd rather keep my pocketbook's anal virginity intact and dance on the grave of the debt-collapsed government, personally.  Win/win for me.

why dance on the grave when a good refurbishing/ fat trimming will do wonders? personally there are cirtin things that our government has to do for us, cirtin things they should do, and things they should keep their big fat noses out of.


yeah you can call me a liberal but i really don't want big government to become an issue. also not ALL of us want to keep amending the constitution untill it's all legal jargen, simplicity is beauty. besides that's what law books are for. also we put waning labels that are so obvious to you precious big corp. doesn't get sued. it may seem like people are just stupid, and frankly i wish that were true, when most of them are looking for a quick lawsuit.

Quote from: superluser on September 23, 2007, 10:32:10 PM

Quote from: Raist on September 23, 2007, 08:19:24 PMMail system, airlines, medicine, computers, agriculture, nearly everything tends to both run cheaper and provide better service when released to the capitalist public.

We have independent confirmation of all but medicine.  Specifically, the NHS system (everybody gets a decent public health care system with the option to pay for private insurance on top of it) in the UK seems to be pretty comparable if not better than ours.

Quote from: Raist on September 23, 2007, 08:19:24 PMIn short, I'd rather have a megacorporation running nearly anything than let the government handle it, because the government's response to financial shortages is to tax the public more.  If the megacorporation starts overpricing or handing out bad service, then at best, they lose some of those much-needed customers.

I really, really wish I could agree with you on this.  It fits in so well with my Libertarian ideology, but it just isn't correct.  The megacorporation's response to financial shortages is to lie to their customers, file for bankruptcy, sell off the services that their customers might want, and jack up rates. (remember HealthSouth?  What about AIDS drugs?  In some parts of the world, they're very well-priced.  Not in the US.)

Basically, health care is so messed up in the US that I don't see how the government could possibly make it any worse.

The key is not to have one single megacorp, but several so consumers have the ability to choose different services.  This causes the corps to work to make better devices/medicines to serve the people in order to boost/maximize profits.  Thats how all the other systems work and is part of the corner stone of any non-slave/deficit based economic system.  For example, in the U.K. most pharmacies are running at deficits because the law requires that they do so in terms of medicine.  This causes fewer pharmacies to be made since people generally don't want to run into debt.  The pharmacies that DO make a profit are often using things other than medicine, resulting in medicine being shoved to the side with no real research done into it outside of government demands which are far from reasonable in most cases, because the government is simply unchallenged in the field because it has demanded to be unchalleneged.

Also, I don't exactly see people fleeing the U.S. in droves to take advantage of this so called "wonder system."

I always like to put it this way:  I guess Cubans are risking their lives in those rickety boats across the great white shark-infested waters to get into Florida and spread the word to all us poor, oppressed Americans about how wonderful it is in Cuba.

:P

i would make a comment about them being ruled by a crazy tyranical dictator but bush isn't that far off.

*laughs*  You need to study your history.  Bush is nowhere close to Castro, or any other dictator in this world past or present.  Indeed, F.D.R. did far worse in times of war.  Were not all those of Japanese descent sent to internment camps with no reason other than the fact that they were too close in appearance to the enemy?  In this war, we know that we've been infiltrated.  We've caught groups in the very act.  Yet this country has gone out of its way to almost what I think is the point of absurdity to avoid 'profiling', even when nearly 100% of those involved in these acts fits a single stereotype:  Arab males ages 19-45.

If any of you actually knew the horrors other people have perpetrated in this world, you would never consider George Bush anything more than a man who got in over his head and who had the misfortune to become President at the time of the attack.  Tell me, what would Mr. Clinton have done in his stead?  The same brilliant plan as the first time the Trade Tower was attacked?  The naive both amuse and sicken me. 

I suggest you read some of what Iran's president said today if you want to understand just what kind of twisted minds we're facing.  His declaration that Iran has no homosexuals in response to the question asking whether or not it was true that Iran executes homosexuals should be evidence to even the staunchest denier that in him we are looking at a monster who would gladly lead a Fourth Reich. 

Last time I checked, the only ones in this country calling for homosexuals to be killed were the "God Hates Fags" people, the KKK, and skinheads.  And pretty much everyone on every side is certain they're idiots.

I would wonder if those who can so boldy stand in front of George Bush and shout angrily at him would have the courage to do so in Iran against the cruelty iand incredible inequality which exists there.  That's rhetorical, by the way.  Of course they wouldn't.  Even in their delusions they know they'd be gunned down in an instant.  I should lump China in there as well.  We have seen time and time again how the atheist regime there deals with freedom-seeking dissenters.

America isn't perfect.  No society with humans in charge ever will be, because every person has weaknesses, and only so much can be done to compensate.

I'll end with a final question.  If you could choose a leader for yourself from the current leaders in the world today, who would you choose?  The grass is always greener on the other side, and you don't realize it's only painted until you stain your feet upon it.

I'd also like to add to that, Abraham Lincoln was about as popular during his term-and-a-half as Pres. Bush is, now.  I've yet to hear from anyone in this day and age that he was a warmonger or a tyrannical dictator, or should have been put on trial for war crimes.

Quotethose who fail to learn history's lessons are doomed to repeat them.

or as I would say, Everything comes full circle.(this is a declaration, not an observation.)

Quote from: Valynth on September 24, 2007, 02:01:44 PMThe key is not to have one single megacorp, but several so consumers have the ability to choose different services.  This causes the corps to work to make better devices/medicines to serve the people in order to boost/maximize profits.  Thats how all the other systems work and is part of the corner stone of any non-slave/deficit based economic system.

Except health care doesn't work this way.

It's a very complicated issue, and to fully understand it, we need to go back to the rationing system under World War II.

[dodges spear]

OK.  Short version, then:

The US government requires some companies to provide their workers with health care.  Many of the largest employers (Wal*Mart. Target) don't care what services are provided--all they care about is whether the health plan that they choose is the cheapest one that satisfies the law.  These lowest-common-denominator health care companies will fare the best simply because they have the volume that the better companies can't get.  It doesn't matter that they're a better value.  What matters is if they're the absolute lowest price.

Quote from: Valynth on September 24, 2007, 02:01:44 PMFor example, in the U.K. most pharmacies are running at deficits because the law requires that they do so in terms of medicine. [...]The pharmacies that DO make a profit are often using things other than medicine, resulting in medicine being shoved to the side with no real research done into it

Uh...do you mean pharmaceutical companies or pharmacies?

Quote from: Valynth on September 24, 2007, 02:01:44 PMAlso, I don't exactly see people fleeing the U.S. in droves to take advantage of this so called "wonder system."

I said, ``the NHS system in the UK seems to be pretty comparable if not better than ours.''  I don't see how that got changed to ``Wonder system.''

=Alondro link=topic=3380.msg147011#msg147011 date=1190678726]even when nearly 100% of those involved in these acts fits a single stereotype:  Arab males ages 19-45.[/quote]

Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Robert Rudolph, Marilyn Buck, Laura Whitehorn, Linda Evans, Lolita Lebrón, Rafael Cancel Miranda, Andrés Figueroa Cordero, Irving Flores Rodríguez, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho: Arab males ages 19-45

Quote from: Alondro on September 24, 2007, 08:05:26 PMIf you could choose a leader for yourself from the current leaders in the world today, who would you choose?

Benedict XVI.

Quote from: superluser on September 24, 2007, 11:19:44 PM
Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Robert Rudolph, Marilyn Buck, Laura Whitehorn, Linda Evans, Lolita Lebrón, Rafael Cancel Miranda, Andrés Figueroa Cordero, Irving Flores Rodríguez, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho: Arab males ages 19-45

He didn't say that all Arab males between 19 and 45 were terrorists, just that all of our suicide bombers thus far have been Arab males between 19 and 45.  Do not confuse the two.  All squares are rectangles, but most rectangles are quite a far cry from square.

Quote from: Raist on September 24, 2007, 11:26:26 PMHe didn't say that all Arab males between 19 and 45 were terrorists, just that all of our suicide bombers thus far have been Arab males between 19 and 45.  Do not confuse the two.  All squares are rectangles, but most rectangles are quite a far cry from square.

He didn't even say that.  He referred to ``These acts,'' which is wonderfully vague.

I interpreted what he said as referring to terrorists.  And while not all Arab males between 19 and 45, not even all terrorists are Arab males between 19 and 45.

So all suicide bombers have been Arab males between 19 and 45?

Pearl Harbor? 

i choose barak obama.


ok here's something.... all those of japanese decent were put in "detainment centers" and he was bashed for it.


bush might not be going that far but he's still saying. "you better watch out or dem arabs are gunna gitcha!" in short promoteing more fear and panic and createing a scape goat. sound familiar? and with the patriot act bush can pretty much do to any one as he pleases aslong as he declares them terrorists first. oh wait.... the president is useing our terror of another 9/11 to his advantage? what's that make him? our protector? not by definition. i still say that bush likes the war so damn much because he's got it in with big oil and haliburton.

(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c357/stigma666/idt20040227halliburton.gif)

also on the issue of alternitive energy a while back. what i ment was ethenol and hydrogen powered cars. hell even solar power would be better  off than nuclear.

in brazil they make ethenol out of sugar cane, and it's half the price of gas with less pollutants going into that atmosphere. infact the burning of ethonol releses relitively the same amount of carbon into the air as if the cane were left to decay naturally.


sorry for the bad grammar and skipping between subjects that's just how my mind works.

Quote from: lucas marcone on September 25, 2007, 12:35:47 AMi still say that bush likes the war so damn much because he's got it in with big oil and haliburton.

What IS it with you people and saying the war's about oil?  If the war was about oil, then

A: we'd have had our oil and been done with it, like Saddam tried to do with Kuwait, instead of trying desperately to put a new government up to replace the old one, and

B: there are FAR easier ways to go about getting more oil than starting a war.  Drilling in Alaska, for one, building more refineries for another.  Discarded turkey renderings for a third, but I brought that up in a different thread already.

I wasn't saying we were trying to get more oil.  The war raises the cost and there for drives Bush's stock up.

Quote from: Raist on September 25, 2007, 12:41:50 AMWhat IS it with you people and saying the war's about oil?

Who, exactly, are ``you people?''  I have never argued that this war was for oil.  I do accuse Bush of some cronyism with Halliburton, but that's it.

Quote from: Raist on September 25, 2007, 12:41:50 AM

Quote from: lucas marcone on September 25, 2007, 12:35:47 AMi still say that bush likes the war so damn much because he's got it in with big oil and haliburton.

What IS it with you people and saying the war's about oil?  If the war was about oil, then

A: we'd have had our oil and been done with it, like Saddam tried to do with Kuwait, instead of trying desperately to put a new government up to replace the old one, and

We said "related to oil" - we -didn't- say "just so the US can get oil". That's a totally different statement, and clearly, the US has other places it can go.


Just a quick google (for "iraq oil currency euro dollar") brings up something like one and a third million hits. The top four are:
Feasta - Oil, Currency and the War on Iraq (http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm) (not listed, apparently around 2003)
Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq:
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html) (jan 2003, revised march, post-war commentary jan 2004)
Project Censored Media democracy in action (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html)(apparently 2003-2004, sources the first link, amongst others)
The Invasion of Iraq: Dollar vs Euro
Re-denominating Iraqi oil in U. S. dollars, instead of the euro (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html) (feb 2004)

It's interesting to note that many of these mention Iraq being the first, and Iran being the only other country to talk publicly about moving to Euros for oil. Oooo. That sounds familiar - where have I heard those two names in close proximity? Oh, yes. Bush's "Axis of Evil". Obviously unrelated to these changes, though. Oil had nothing to do with it, right?

Right.

I saw a list of 14 non-Arabs.  In this current terrorist period, going back to the late 1970's, the vast majority of organized terrorist attacks in the US and against US targets abroad have been carried out by Arab males.  It's not 100%, but like I said, it's close.  I don't exactly have the time to get every single name and determine the percentage to <1% margin of error.

It's not just Bush saying the Arabs are gonna get us.  THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEMSELVES!!!  All the way back to the Iranian revolution the same groups have delared their intent to convert the world to their maniacal form of Islam, and kill everyone who refuses.  Their language on this hasn't changed, and their groups are alot bigger and better at creating cells in other countries, taking advantage of religious freedom and freedom of speech so that one day they and their leaders can erase those freedoms.

Will they succeed?  I don't think they actually can.  For one thing, if China felt any one of these countries was a threat to them, they'd wipe it off the face of the earth without hesitation.  But that doesn't mean the terrosit groups can't do tremendous amount of damage in the meantime and get themselves so entrenched in various nations that it will take decades or longer to root all of them out.

You don't understand what we're dealing with.  These are people that would kill you without question if you spoke a bad word about the Prophet.  How often do people profane Christianity's God and no one bats an eye?  That's tolerance of other people's speech.  Their system of radical thought doesn't allow for that.  They say very openly "Convert or die", and yet people in this country still live under the illusion that they're just protest ol George.  Look at the death threats and riots after the Prophet caricatures, for instance.  How many Christians have rioted and killed people in our generation when they or their God was mocked, which happens pretty much on a daily basis?  Would Richard Dawkins feel as brave about mocking Islam?  I should quite like to see what happens if he declared Islam as stupid as he thinks Christianity is.  

Sharia-based Islam is trapped in the brutality of the Middle Ages and quite happy to stay there, eliminating any outside thoughts and influences until it is all that remains.

Those who belong to the radical belief system hate us, they hate our way of life, they hate freedom, they hate every religion other than theirs, and they even hate those whose Islam isn't brutal and murderous like theirs, and they repeat often how they'd like to exterminate Jews and wipe Israel off the map.  They have shown repeatedly that they're quite willing to act upon their murderous compulsions, so the threat is not nebulous; it is real and ongoing.

In case you've already forgotten, the military base, Ft. Dix, near my house was close to being attacked.  The only thing that stopped it was the would-be attackers' own ineptitude and the fortune that they were just some fools who fell into the trap of believing too much of what they read on the Internet instead of one of the organized terror units, much like several would-be skin heads in my school in 1995:  lots of 'racial pride', not so many brains.  Then there were the German cells which were planning a massive attack just a few weeks ago.  There are schools in the USA owned and operated by radical groups teaching the most oppressive version of Islam, Sharia Law.  I have been able to read some of what is taught in those schools, quizzes about the Q'ran that rather unmistakably indicate all non-believers are to be killed under Islamic law.

If we were to stop all fighting with US troops right now and leave the entire Middle East, do you honestly think they'd stop?  

Ilearch, it just so happens that Iran has sponsored terrorism for nearly 30 years.  Nigeria produces oil too, so does Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, Russia and quite a few other countries.  Those other countries aren't declaring "Death to America".  That's the connection, not oil.  True, the Venezuelan president (soon-to-be-dictator, the way it's going) is an anti-democratic communist prick who is going to ruin his country and bring misery to the people like all communists before him, but he's not proposing that Venezuelan's go to the US and blow up buildings.  Germany, Italy, and Japan were their time's axis of evil not because of oil, but because their ruling powers did evil things.  If Iran shut the hell up and just happily sold oil and made its money, we wouldn't care about them.  Iran was as ally under the old government, and that those who seized power and imposed the current regime were a very violent minority. 

That seems to be the way governments fall these days, by the way.  The silent majority are too frightened to fight back and the freaks take control because they don't care if they or anyone else dies to achieve their leaders' goals.

I fully agree, Alondro. I'm not trying to run one side of the argument, here.

The whole situation is sad, and I know -I- can't see any easy, or, for that matter, even any really really hard, way out of it.

My only point was... Bush isn't as all-fired innocent as some people claim him to be. Sure, the terrorists need to be stopped. On the other hand, most of what he's done that has affected me has been security theatre; lots of noise, lots of trouble, sweet fuck-all as far as actual security goes.

Seriously - what does stopping liquids from travelling on planes do, but keep the masses terrified that the terrorists are going to get them? What has Bush done in the last few years that -hasn't- been aimed at keeping the populace in terror? And isn't that supposed to be what he's -protecting- the people from?

I'll admit I'm a bit one-sided about it all - being excessively cynical is something I try to avoid, if only because I realise how easily I fall into it - but even so... he's not operating in a vacuum, and the oil is only one of many reasons why he went into Iraq.

My objection to it is the ONLY reason he claimed to want to go into Iraq was to WMDs. And... nobody, either before or after Gulf War 2.0, managed to find anything probitive. Now, if he'd said "we need to go in to check to WMDs, and also topple this evil regime" it might be different - all he said was, WMDs. No WMDs? No reason to go in.

Once you're in, you -have- to follow through, to the hilt. And, sure as shit, he didn't wait for anyone else. And now we're all stuck with the mess he created. Bali, for example, had -nothing- to do with the US.


I tell ya, I'm thinking KMFDM had it all over, with Stars & Stripes (http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/kmfdm/starsstripes.html)...

No, I don't think any of the terrorists would stop, if the US left Iraq now. And yes, I'm aware that Iran - and other middle-eastern countries, albeit usually more deniably - have been supporting terrorism for longer than I've been alive. Libya ring any bells?


My point was, I think, that -money- has a lot to do with it - if you look at the links I posted (which you probably have, Alondro, but I'm not just speaking for -your- benefit here ;-] ) they mention that the rest of the world has, due to the oil being sold in USD, supported the US economy. If the Middle Eastern countries started taking Euros instead, that would cause some -major- effects on the US; the USD is already around 1.4 to the EUR, and 2.0 to the GBP. That would get -much- worse - since around 2002, where it was around 0.9-1.0 USD to the EUR, the USD has been slipping. The whole Haliburton thing just sickens me, but that's another argument again...

*cough* Sorry, I think you triggered something there. :-/ I'm not sure I even answered your query...

Edit:
We might want to consider letting it lie, though, before we upset anyone. I know -I'm- reasonable enough to discuss without getting all worked up over it, but I can't speak for anyone else. ;-]
You're welcome to finish your point, though.

Quote from: Alondro on September 25, 2007, 09:20:14 AM
I saw a list of 14 non-Arabs.  In this current terrorist period, going back to the late 1970's, the vast majority of organized terrorist attacks in the US and against US targets abroad have been carried out by Arab males.  It's not 100%, but like I said, it's close.  I don't exactly have the time to get every single name and determine the percentage to <1% margin of error.

It's not just Bush saying the Arabs are gonna get us.  THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEMSELVES!!!  All the way back to the Iranian revolution the same groups have delared their intent to convert the world to their maniacal form of Islam, and kill everyone who refuses.  Their language on this hasn't changed, and their groups are alot bigger and better at creating cells in other countries, taking advantage of religious freedom and freedom of speech so that one day they and their leaders can erase those freedoms.

Will they succeed?  I don't think they actually can.  For one thing, if China felt any one of these countries was a threat to them, they'd wipe it off the face of the earth without hesitation.  But that doesn't mean the terrosit groups can't do tremendous amount of damage in the meantime and get themselves so entrenched in various nations that it will take decades or longer to root all of them out.

You don't understand what we're dealing with.  These are people that would kill you without question if you spoke a bad word about the Prophet.  How often do people profane Christianity's God and no one bats an eye?  That's tolerance of other people's speech.  Their system of radical thought doesn't allow for that.  They say very openly "Convert or die", and yet people in this country still live under the illusion that they're just protest ol George.  Look at the death threats and riots after the Prophet caricatures, for instance.  How many Christians have rioted and killed people in our generation when they or their God was mocked, which happens pretty much on a daily basis?  Would Richard Dawkins feel as brave about mocking Islam?  I should quite like to see what happens if he declared Islam as stupid as he thinks Christianity is.  

Sharia-based Islam is trapped in the brutality of the Middle Ages and quite happy to stay there, eliminating any outside thoughts and influences until it is all that remains.

Those who belong to the radical belief system hate us, they hate our way of life, they hate freedom, they hate every religion other than theirs, and they even hate those whose Islam isn't brutal and murderous like theirs, and they repeat often how they'd like to exterminate Jews and wipe Israel off the map.  They have shown repeatedly that they're quite willing to act upon their murderous compulsions, so the threat is not nebulous; it is real and ongoing.

In case you've already forgotten, the military base, Ft. Dix, near my house was close to being attacked.  The only thing that stopped it was the would-be attackers' own ineptitude and the fortune that they were just some fools who fell into the trap of believing too much of what they read on the Internet instead of one of the organized terror units, much like several would-be skin heads in my school in 1995:  lots of 'racial pride', not so many brains.  Then there were the German cells which were planning a massive attack just a few weeks ago.  There are schools in the USA owned and operated by radical groups teaching the most oppressive version of Islam, Sharia Law.  I have been able to read some of what is taught in those schools, quizzes about the Q'ran that rather unmistakably indicate all non-believers are to be killed under Islamic law.

If we were to stop all fighting with US troops right now and leave the entire Middle East, do you honestly think they'd stop?  

Ilearch, it just so happens that Iran has sponsored terrorism for nearly 30 years.  Nigeria produces oil too, so does Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, Russia and quite a few other countries.  Those other countries aren't declaring "Death to America".  That's the connection, not oil.  True, the Venezuelan president (soon-to-be-dictator, the way it's going) is an anti-democratic communist prick who is going to ruin his country and bring misery to the people like all communists before him, but he's not proposing that Venezuelan's go to the US and blow up buildings.  Germany, Italy, and Japan were their time's axis of evil not because of oil, but because their ruling powers did evil things.  If Iran shut the hell up and just happily sold oil and made its money, we wouldn't care about them.  Iran was as ally under the old government, and that those who seized power and imposed the current regime were a very violent minority. 

That seems to be the way governments fall these days, by the way.  The silent majority are too frightened to fight back and the freaks take control because they don't care if they or anyone else dies to achieve their leaders' goals.

I'm going to finnish explaining my point then i'll quit this argument (unless the rest of us can agree to be civil till the end.)


About your first point, ninty-what ever percent of ages yadda to yadda may be the primary terrorists. -But- you're not looking at the percentage of -all- arabians that are -not- terrorists to those that are. Bush is alienateing all the peaceful muslims and any arabs that belive in any other religion even. Just because someone is from the middle east does not automaticly make them a terrorist. I know you're going to talk about all the terrorists you're going to see on TV. At that point I would point out the fact that that's the sensational media. Then you would bring up the terrorist schools. Then I would ask you how many you know of and why you haven't called the government on them.


About your second point. How many of them are saying that? and Id we're over there why haven't we gone after them? oh, wait we have to stableize Iraq insted of going into the countries the insurgeants are comeing from! And your wording of it scares me. It would seem you are proposeing fashism.


third point, agreed. -but- you're proposeing (in conjunction with your second point) going in after them at the cost of afew essential freedoms. Benjamin Franklin once said "Some people would trade freedom for protection." -I- am not one of those people. yes I -would- die for my and everyone else's freedom. Now that's not to say we shouldn't do anything about known terrorists in the USA, -but- then we have to draw the line about what infringes freedom but still gives us protection. That is something Bush failed to do when writeing up the Patriot act. Warrentless tapping is a bit much. Show me a warrent and go right on ahead.

Fourth point. You don't know what you're dealing with either. The extreamist may very well get up in arms, but what of the nonterrorist peaceful people huh? It is our freedom of speech that allows us to speak about our dieaties that way. maybe we should draw up satires of the prophet to display that -we are not afraid-  and if we have to fight for it -so be it!- It's real easy to just say you belive in freedom of speach untill some nut job threatens your life the people shut up. If we don't fight to say what we want then we just -belive- in freedom of speech.

not exactly shure how to answer this point seeing as it's just a reenforcer of you previous point.


it wouldn't stop entirely and you would be naieve to think that. but it would sto considerably.

Bush is fooling you, yeah Iran is a terrorist sponsor but why haven't we pulled even -more- troops from the Osama hunt to go into it? I mean Bust pretty much declare Osama unimportant right? Bush just called those countries the Axis of Evil not because of the threat but because of the emotional ties it would have to thought of nazism. Bush wants money(from higher oil prices), glory, and power oh, and if we freed a people in the process to look good that's cool too.

Lastly agreed, just look at our country.

Quote from: Alondro on September 25, 2007, 09:20:14 AMI saw a list of 14 non-Arabs.  In this current terrorist period, going back to the late 1970's, the vast majority of organized terrorist attacks in the US and against US targets abroad have been carried out by Arab males.  It's not 100%, but like I said, it's close.  I don't exactly have the time to get every single name and determine the percentage to <1% margin of error.

Look, it's not even close to 100%.  There are several large groups that I didn't list because the incidents can only be linked to the groups, and not to individuals.  I also tried to go after the most famous incidents.  The Weathermen, for example.  Another group (of American Indians) tried to spread salmonella in a biological attack.

The problem is that if you look at Arab males 19-45, you will ignore the majority of terrorists, who are not Arab males 19-45.

*clicks the pause button* I'd just like to take time out to thank all of you for provideing me with a healthy outlet for political venting. I'd also like to thank you all for being so civil about this :hug. That said time to resume the good fight. *unpauses the thread*  :cuss

Quote from: Alondro on September 24, 2007, 08:05:26 PM
*laughs*  You need to study your history.  Bush is nowhere close to Castro, or any other dictator in this world past or present.  Indeed, F.D.R. did far worse in times of war.  ...  If any of you actually knew the horrors other people have perpetrated in this world, you would never consider George Bush anything more than a man who got in over his head and who had the misfortune to become President at the time of the attack. ... I would wonder if those who can so boldy stand in front of George Bush and shout angrily at him would have the courage to do so in Iran against the cruelty iand incredible inequality which exists there.

Etc.

I say probably say this too much, but... thank you for saying it.

Quote from: Alondro on September 24, 2007, 08:05:26 PMI suggest you read some of what Iran's president said today if you want to understand just what kind of twisted minds we're facing.  His declaration that Iran has no homosexuals in response to the question asking whether or not it was true that Iran executes homosexuals should be evidence to even the staunchest denier that in him we are looking at a monster who would gladly lead a Fourth Reich.

Not that, to hear him tell it, there was much of a Third Reich.

I saw some of that, actually (http://caswin.deviantart.com/journal/14771451/#comments).  How much did I miss?

i read your journal. In physics it gets complicated. talk with hawking about black holes one time.


back to the topic at hand. could a few of his questions been misphrased by a faulty interpreter? Not that I'm takeing his side. The man wanted to visit ground zero to admire Osama's handiwork, he should be shot.

Quote from: lucas marcone on September 25, 2007, 08:35:37 PMback to the topic at hand. could a few of his questions been misphrased by a faulty interpreter? Not that I'm takeing his side. The man wanted to visit ground zero to admire Osama's handiwork, he should be shot.

Yeah, well, that wouldn't be very nice. :rolleyes

I'm a bit appalled, that in such an intellectual thread I'd have to, for the first time, use my forum abilities for evil. :< For such an intelligent thread, there sure has been some intelligently unintelligent comments being made. I would normally make a MASSIVE reply right here, quoting numerous different people and typing out numerous different responses, picking apart everything, but in all honesty, I don't think even I would want to read a post that epic. >:3 We're talking minimum, 20 quotes (total, including single posts sliced up) and at least 1 paragraph for each response. I'll...have to figure out where to start sometime. At a point like this in a thread's life, it's impossible for me to just NOT respond to anyone else's posts.

But NO ONE continues arguing after they have been professionally "Shot" it is a VERY effective way to rid yourself of anyone bugging you.

FAR more effective than anything the UN has ever done.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999950/


2 parts of the patriot act ruled unconstituional! whoo! it's about time the people started attacking the piece of paper that infringes on SO many rights.


a guest on the colbert report stated that bush had taken at least four of the ten steps to becomeing a dictator, and the patriot act i know contains at least two. well one now that those two parts were deamed un constitutional.

Quote from: lucas marcone on September 26, 2007, 08:30:39 PMit's about time the people started attacking the piece of paper that infringes on SO many rights.

Yes, because they've been practically silent about it until now, right?  :T

Not that I'm a big supporter of the Patriot Act, but for some reason, it bothers me in general when people refer to laws and such as pieces of paper.  Hm.

Edit: Just fixed your quote, to make it easier to read. Don't mind me. ;-]