study shows liberals are "smarter" than conservitives

[lucas marcone]

"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."




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

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

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.

[Fuyudenki]

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.

[lucas marcone]

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.

[Valynth]

Mail 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.

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.

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."

[Alondro]

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.

[lucas marcone]

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

[Alondro]

*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.

[Fuyudenki]

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.

those 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.)

[superluser]

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.

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.

For 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?

Also, 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

If you could choose a leader for yourself from the current leaders in the world today, who would you choose?

Benedict XVI.

[Fuyudenki]

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.

[superluser]

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.

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? 

[lucas marcone]

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.



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.

[Fuyudenki]

i 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.

[lucas marcone]

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

[superluser]

What 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.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

i 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 (not listed, apparently around 2003)
Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq:
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth (jan 2003, revised march, post-war commentary jan 2004)
Project Censored Media democracy in action(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 (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.

[Alondro]

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.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

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...

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.

[lucas marcone]

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.

[superluser]

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.

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.

[lucas marcone]

*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 . That said time to resume the good fight. *unpauses the thread* 

[Caswin]

*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.

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.

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

I saw some of that, actually.  How much did I miss?

[lucas marcone]

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.

[Kamunt]

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.

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

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. 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.

[Zorro]

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.

[lucas marcone]

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.

[Caswin]

it'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? 

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. ;-]