A letter from Kerry

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Oct 07, 2004 10:15 pm

Yeah, it was pretty much a tie, although I still feel the republican'ts are holding too dearly to the 'flip-flop' defense. They are slowly losing their credibility.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:07 am

Xisiqomelir wrote:Sorry, I know the debate was a few days ago, but I can't resist.

YOU FORGOT ABOUT POLAND!!!


www.youforgotpoland.com
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"

Gura: ..btw, being a dick is my god given right as an evil.
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Postby Disoputlip » Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:02 pm

Imis9 wrote:The only thing to do to terrorists is to kill their leaders and anyone that then rises up to lead them again. They are a serpent who you must keep kiling the head of the organization. Israel has been dealing with these people for years and we should now understand why Israel has acted as it has. Bush is taking the fight to the terrorists. I'd rather the war went on in Iraq than in the streets of NYC, DC, Atlanta, KC, LA, etc.


With this attitude (right or wrong) you should kill all leaders of K.K.K.

Bush should be held before an international court and sentenced based on his warcrimes in Iraq. You cannot be the aggressor in a war. Because america did not have the support of the UN, as they did last time, then something wrong was done.

Those that think the goal justify the mean have a long way to go. Mabye begin by accepting it as a dogma.

American soldiers have tortured iraq prisoners. Try to put yourself in their place, ofcourse they want to kill americans more now.

What happens on Guantanamo is equally horrible. America emprison humans in off-law places because they couldn't do it on american soil because it would be illigal. Then they reformulate the Geneva-convension. Making up a new term "illigal combetants" that doesn't exist. Then they free 1 of the prisoners because he is an american citizen, and it would be too horrible to treat an american citizen like that.

I have no idea how it ends, but what america did was not "right"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:00 pm

Disoputlip wrote:With this attitude (right or wrong) you should kill all leaders of K.K.K.


The K.K.K. in recent history has not been a violent group and has not forcefully taken the freedoms of others. They work through acceptable political processes protected by the freedoms of speech and the press. Freedom within a society is maintained by both limiting and protecting the freedoms of individuals.

Disoputlip wrote:Bush should be held before an international court and sentenced based on his warcrimes in Iraq. You cannot be the aggressor in a war. Because america did not have the support of the UN, as they did last time, then something wrong was done.


Since when is a country any more of an aggressor than another? Just because you have the support of the UN does not make you any less of an aggressor. Let's look at the facts. The war was fought in Iraq and is over. We are fortunate that this time we did not have to fight Iraqis in someone else's country. Currently, America is an occupying power staying by the invitation of the government that the US has constructed to rule over the country. That government has established a constitution that will allow for the people to choose their own government and they are moving towards free elections soon. Furthermore, there are situations in which it would be criminal to have not gone to war. War is not an evil, but merely an outwards expression of the people.

Disoputlip wrote:Those that think the goal justify the mean have a long way to go. Mabye begin by accepting it as a dogma.


To have a goal is critical in the success in any kind of project. Simply running from event to event in a crisis oriented morality identity has promoted great disaster throughout history (Neville Chamberlain, French Algeria, Congo, Sudan, Ruwanda...). Whether or not the ends justify the means is not so important as having a goal and focusing on a task's completion.

Disoputlip wrote:American soldiers have tortured iraq prisoners. Try to put yourself in their place, ofcourse they want to kill americans more now.


Those are not American soldiers, but military criminals and prisoners in Leavenworth, I would even call them traitors to their country. Also, to be quite frank, the alleged 'torture' wasn't so bad. I personally had worse hazings at the academy. Standing on a box with a bag on your head and getting poked when I start to fall asleep is hardly torture. It's more like trying to stay awake in my chemistry class.

Disoputlip wrote:What happens on Guantanamo is equally horrible. America emprison humans in off-law places because they couldn't do it on american soil because it would be illigal. Then they reformulate the Geneva-convension. Making up a new term "illigal combetants" that doesn't exist. Then they free 1 of the prisoners because he is an american citizen, and it would be too horrible to treat an american citizen like that.


Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay do not need to fear for their lives. They are fed, housed, and clothed and are being held because they have demonstrated a potential threat to do harm to the United States. Every country has it's prisoners. From the Chinese political dissidents, to muslims held by the French for trafficking, to the Japanese spies that were once held by Canada.

These prisoners are released once they've demonstrated that they mean the United States no harm, and are recieving all basic human necessities, even education and healthcare. Guantanamo bay was chosen to cut down on paperwork and litigation.

Disoputlip wrote:I have no idea how it ends, but what america did was not "right"


America is right in it's cause to spread human freedom and democratic government throughout the world. Even among our greatest threats, the American people have shown the some of the greatest compassion that the world has known. America feeds half the population of North Korea and continues to do so even throughout the current nuclear crisis. America shields the freedom of the Iraqi people with the bodies and the blood of it's own sons and daughters. America has answered the call time and time again whenever it's neighbors have called upon her, no matter how dire the situation or how numerous the enemy. And America will forever stand with it's friends and partners to protect the inalienable rights of all.

Certainly we make mistakes, Americans have harmed the innocent, deemed guilty those who have done no wrong, freed those who deserve the most terrible punishments.

But I will never forget the dedication of my brothers and sisters here in the United States, the commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - even for our greatest enemies.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Postby Disoputlip » Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:47 pm

Teflor...

Well put!!! you have convinced me the war is good. I agree with your schoolyard example, although I havned tried something equal.

The world is a wrong place. And we are much better than those middle east people. we know it, and they know it (but wont accept it).

Now we just need to get rid of whomever is in north korea, and then put democracy into Iraq.

Lets do this together!!!

Viva America! Viva Teflor!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:22 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:Since when is a country any more of an aggressor than another?


When we are the ones attacking and invading another country which had no apparent plans agaunst us? Sounds like more of an agressor to me...

To have a goal is critical in the success in any kind of project. Simply running from event to event in a crisis oriented morality identity has promoted great disaster throughout history (Neville Chamberlain, French Algeria, Congo, Sudan, Ruwanda...). Whether or not the ends justify the means is not so important as having a goal and focusing on a task's completion.



Having an actual plan to meet that goal is pretty important though, especially before you start the project. It's also usually nice to bring significant help along.


Those are not American soldiers, but military criminals and prisoners in Leavenworth, I would even call them traitors to their country. Also, to be quite frank, the alleged 'torture' wasn't so bad. I personally had worse hazings at the academy. Standing on a box with a bag on your head and getting poked when I start to fall asleep is hardly torture. It's more like trying to stay awake in my chemistry class.


Yes, because it's perfectly ok to humiliate and terrify people just because they are suspected criminals. That you went through something similiar by choice really makes it ok.

Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay do not need to fear for their lives. They are fed, housed, and clothed and are being held because they have demonstrated a potential threat to do harm to the United States. Every country has it's prisoners. From the Chinese political dissidents, to muslims held by the French for trafficking, to the Japanese spies that were once held by Canada.


They have not demonstrated anything, they are <i>suspects</i>. YOu understand what suspects are right? How would you like ending up in prison because someone about your height wearing similar clothes to you commited a crime? Then being denied lawyers and tortured for information?

These prisoners are released once they've demonstrated that they mean the United States no harm, and are recieving all basic human necessities, even education and healthcare. Guantanamo bay was chosen to cut down on paperwork and litigation.


Yeah, free from litigation such as fair trials.

America is right in it's cause to spread human freedom and democratic government throughout the world. Even among our greatest threats, the American people have shown the some of the greatest compassion that the world has known. America feeds half the population of North Korea and continues to do so even throughout the current nuclear crisis. America shields the freedom of the Iraqi people with the bodies and the blood of it's own sons and daughters. America has answered the call time and time again whenever it's neighbors have called upon her, no matter how dire the situation or how numerous the enemy. And America will forever stand with it's friends and partners to protect the inalienable rights of all.


How... jingoistic.

I'm not arguing that America isn't ideally all you've just said, but sometimes our leadership just does not live up to it.

Certainly we make mistakes, Americans have harmed the innocent, deemed guilty those who have done no wrong, freed those who deserve the most terrible punishments.


Propped up dictatorships, installed mass murderers as the heads of countries...

But I will never forget the dedication of my brothers and sisters here in the United States, the commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - even for our greatest enemies.


Good.

But I sincerely question President Bush's dedication to those principles, even for our own citizens.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:51 pm

Teflon wrote:America is an occupying power staying by the invitation of the government that the US has constructed to rule over the country


You mean like Germans during WW2 were staying in France by invitation of Petain?

Teflon wrote:are being held because they have demonstrated a potential threat to do harm to the United States. Every country has it's prisoners. From the Chinese political dissidents


well comparing US to China is a bit harsh but yer on right track...

B4 flames i cam not comparing US to Nazi or China. Just pointing out Teflor's flawed logic
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'
A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:01 pm

oteb wrote:
You mean like Germans during WW2 were staying in France by invitation of Petain?



Oooh! What about the Russians staying in Germany after WWII?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:19 am

beto than you wrote:well comparing US to China is a bit harsh but yer on right track...

B4 flames i cam not comparing US to Nazi or China. Just pointing out Teflor's flawed logic


I'm only pointing out that the countries that are complaining about the war on terror have no right.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:23 am

Disoputlip wrote:Teflor...

The world is a wrong place. And we are much better than those middle east people. we know it, and they know it (but wont accept it).

Now we just need to get rid of whomever is in north korea, and then put democracy into Iraq.

Lets do this together!!!

Viva America! Viva Teflor!


I'm not against the people of the middle east, but the people who would control them, force them to follow their religious guidlines, and rule them in a manner that robs them of their freedoms.

It's because I believe that freedom depends on all people being free, that the middle eastern peoples are our brothers, and that all are created equal.

If you can't see that, you are blind. When the eyes are closed, the world is dark.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:32 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
I'm not against the people of the middle east, but the people who would control them, force them to follow their religious guidlines, and rule them in a manner that robs them of their freedoms.


It's interesting then that you support Bush.

Bush has tried to make Gay Marriage unconstitutional, which is forcing all Americans to follow his religious guidelines.

The Patriot Act, while it does have some legitimate uses, has also taken away many of our freedoms.

You're trusting this administration to give Iraqi people freedom while they are attempting to take freedom away from us.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:39 am

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:To have a goal is critical in the success in any kind of project. Simply running from event to event in a crisis oriented morality identity has promoted great disaster throughout history (Neville Chamberlain, French Algeria, Congo, Sudan, Ruwanda...). Whether or not the ends justify the means is not so important as having a goal and focusing on a task's completion.

Having an actual plan to meet that goal is pretty important though, especially before you start the project. It's also usually nice to bring significant help along.


They're making good progress in Iraq. So far, it's been fairly successful, and a hell of a lot less disasterous than other US military operations, D-Day, Vietnam, etc. etc.

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Those are not American soldiers, but military criminals and prisoners in Leavenworth, I would even call them traitors to their country. Also, to be quite frank, the alleged 'torture' wasn't so bad. I personally had worse hazings at the academy. Standing on a box with a bag on your head and getting poked when I start to fall asleep is hardly torture. It's more like trying to stay awake in my chemistry class.

Yes, because it's perfectly ok to humiliate and terrify people just because they are suspected criminals. That you went through something similiar by choice really makes it ok.


Repeat: Those are not American soldiers, but military criminals and prisoners in Leavenworth, I would even call them traitors to their country.

Now I would like to see more fairness to the prisoners at Guantanamo bay, but they are given basic needs and they do have a chance to return to their homes. Also, they have a right to lawyer if they are set before a military court.

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:America is right in it's cause to spread human freedom and democratic government throughout the world. Even among our greatest threats, the American people have shown the some of the greatest compassion that the world has known. America feeds half the population of North Korea and continues to do so even throughout the current nuclear crisis. America shields the freedom of the Iraqi people with the bodies and the blood of it's own sons and daughters. America has answered the call time and time again whenever it's neighbors have called upon her, no matter how dire the situation or how numerous the enemy. And America will forever stand with it's friends and partners to protect the inalienable rights of all.


How... jingoistic.

I'm not arguing that America isn't ideally all you've just said, but sometimes our leadership just does not live up to it.


We really do feed half of North Korea even through this disagreement, We really did send troops to the phillipines when they called upon us for help, we really did send marines to liberia when their people asked for our help.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:45 am

Sarvis wrote:
It's interesting then that you support Bush.

Bush has tried to make Gay Marriage unconstitutional, which is forcing all Americans to follow his religious guidelines.

The Patriot Act, while it does have some legitimate uses, has also taken away many of our freedoms.

You're trusting this administration to give Iraqi people freedom while they are attempting to take freedom away from us.


To the first point, you can think of it as either an attack on gay marriages or a defense of straight marriages. Quite frankly, there is nothing in the constitution about marriages at all right now, so it's fine to work with as a starting point. The priorities aftewards should be in defense of the freedom of our society.

That and with the Patriot act:

The freedom of society is most important. In order to protect the freedom of society, the freedoms of the individual must be both limited and protected.

Here's an example:

The freedom of an individual to kill you impedes on the right of that individual's freedom to live.

In order to protect the freedom of society, you must limit the freedom to kill and protect the freedom to live.

Purely about the Patriot act:

Hey, this isn't the first time.

Federal Wiretapping Act - the Right to not live in privacy
Assault Weapons Ban - the Right to not own guns
Emancipation Procliamation - the Right to not own people
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:28 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
To the first point, you can think of it as either an attack on gay marriages or a defense of straight marriages. Quite frankly, there is nothing in the constitution about marriages at all right now, so it's fine to work with as a starting point.


Umm... no. Nothing about allowing gay marriages is a danger to straight marriages.

Nothing.

In fact, it would probably lower the divorce rate eventally as gay people would feel less social pressure to "live a lie" by marrying someone of the opposite sex.

Of course banning stem cell research and abortion are <i>also</i> imposing <i>his</i> religious ideals on all people.

Whether you agree with those things or not, they are part of his religious doctrine and therefore should not be legislated by the government.

The freedom of society is most important. In order to protect the freedom of society, the freedoms of the individual must be both limited and protected.

Here's an example:

The freedom of an individual to kill you impedes on the right of that individual's freedom to live.

In order to protect the freedom of society, you must limit the freedom to kill and protect the freedom to live.

Purely about the Patriot act:

Hey, this isn't the first time.

Federal Wiretapping Act - the Right to not live in privacy
Assault Weapons Ban - the Right to not own guns
Emancipation Procliamation - the Right to not own people

[/quote]

Just because this is the first time does not justify it.

Do you like the thought of someone sneaking into your house while you aren't there to search it? Cops are allowed to do that now.

By the way, the definition of a terrorist under the Patriot Act... I can't emember exactly but it was so general that it oculd include someone breaking the speed limit.

I'd also hardly call the Emancipation Proclamation an infringment on anyone's rights...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:42 am

Sarvis wrote:Of course banning stem cell research and abortion are <i>also</i> imposing <i>his</i> religious ideals on all people.


Excerpts from:
Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research
The Bush Ranch
Crawford, Texas

"At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.

...

Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made. "
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:46 am

Sarvis wrote:By the way, the definition of a terrorist under the Patriot Act... I can't emember exactly but it was so general that it oculd include someone breaking the speed limit.


While I won't dignify this statement with a specific response, I would like to share a personal opinion.

Last night I was driving southbound on I-95, going a little over seventy miles an hour through fairly dense traffic, and a Chevy Monte Carlo SS came roaring in behind me at about 90 or so miles per hour, ducking and weaving between traffic, scaring the crap out of the other motorists and causing confusion on the road.

It made me think of the 100 car pileup on that section of I-95 that we just had the day before.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:47 am

Sarvis wrote:I'd also hardly call the Emancipation Proclamation an infringment on anyone's rights...


At one time, half the nation thought it did.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:48 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Of course banning stem cell research and abortion are <i>also</i> imposing <i>his</i> religious ideals on all people.


Excerpts from:
Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research
The Bush Ranch
Crawford, Texas

"At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.

...

Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made. "


Yes yes, forgive me for not wanting to type out the whole "banned stem cell research, except on the inadequate stem cell lines already existing.

By the way, I hope you are aware that stem cells could be harvested from the extra embryo's at fertility clinics which are going to be destroyed (wasted) anyway.


While I won't dignify this statement with a specific response, I would like to share a personal opinion.


Here's the actual text from the actual <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:46:./temp/~c107MzkC4t:e332632:">USA Patriot Act</a>:


`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--


`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

Speeding is dangerous and illegal, therefore you are now a terrorist.

IT's unlikely that the law would be applied that way... but it can be if they want.


EDIT:

Ok, so apparently when you do a search you get a temporary link to the document.

So if you wanna read what I'm talking about in the Patriot Act

Go to http://thomas.loc.gov

search for Bill number H.R.3162, but make sure you do it under the 107th congress link at the top of the page.

Then you want TITLE VIII--STRENGTHENING THE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST TERRORISM
Then SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.


Really sucks that you can't link to it...
Last edited by Sarvis on Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:54 am

You're right, I'm sorry... <a href="http://www.bend.com/news/ar_view^3Far_id^3D18712.htm">Bush loves our Freedom</a>!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lenefir
Sojourner
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby Lenefir » Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:16 am

teflor the ranger wrote:Let's look at the facts. The war was fought in Iraq and is over.

Is it? Sure doesn't look like it from the daily casualties over there...

(Assuming it was read correctly from http://icasualties.org/oif/)
As of October 14, 2004, the coalition death toll in this conflict was 1,225. Of these, 1,087 Americans, 68 British, 19 Italians, 13 Polish, 11 Spanish, 9 Ukrainians, 6 Bulgarians, 3 Slovaks, 2 Dutch, 2 Thai, 1 Danish, 1 Estonian, 1 Hungarian, 1 Latvian, and 1 Salvadoran have died. More than 85% of these died after President Bush's announcement on May 1, 2003 that major combat was over.

teflor the ranger wrote:We are fortunate that this time we did not have to fight Iraqis in someone else's country.

Last time Iraq invaded another country. It was condemned by the international world. U.S. led the U.N. forces (this time consisting of a lot of other countries) pushing Iraq out of Kuwait. They stopped there.

This time U.S. invades another country. A lot of foreign countries don't agree (to put it mildly). It's not supported in the U.N.

teflor the ranger wrote:Currently, America is an occupying power staying by the invitation of the government that the US has constructed to rule over the country.

By your own words: U.S. constructed the government. Government rules the country. -> U.S. rules the country. Wonder why so many Iraqies (and a lot of other people in other (nearby) contries) are sceptical, and even takes up arms against the soldiers currently there?
(Can't find the actual link now, but) International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted "conservative" intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.

So much for a safer world...
Last edited by Lenefir on Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you; and if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch [...]. When you do things right, people won't be sure you have done anything at all"
--Futurama
Lenefir
Sojourner
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby Lenefir » Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:31 am

teflor the ranger wrote:I'm only pointing out that the countries that are complaining about the war on terror have no right.

Please enlighten me... What is the link between complaining about the Iraq war and complaining about war on terror?

As far as I have understood, a lot of countries do the former, not so many do the latter.
"Being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you; and if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch [...]. When you do things right, people won't be sure you have done anything at all"

--Futurama
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:04 pm

I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.


Sarvis wrote:Yes yes, forgive me for not wanting to type out the whole "banned stem cell research, except on the inadequate stem cell lines already existing.

By the way, I hope you are aware that stem cells could be harvested from the extra embryo's at fertility clinics which are going to be destroyed (wasted) anyway.


"Federal Funds" <- Considering how little of these go into companies like Celera and Glaxo Smith Kline, its hardly even a limitation, much less a 'ban'.

And Bush's speech goes onto further address his moral reasoning over the harvesting of stem cells from embryos that are to be destroyed anyway.

If you bothered to find it and read it. I only took an excerpt.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:12 pm

Lenefir wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Let's look at the facts. The war was fought in Iraq and is over.

Is it? Sure doesn't look like it from the daily casualties over there...

(Assuming it was read correctly from http://icasualties.org/oif/)
As of October 14, 2004, the coalition death toll in this conflict was 1,225. Of these, 1,087 Americans, 68 British, 19 Italians, 13 Polish, 11 Spanish, 9 Ukrainians, 6 Bulgarians, 3 Slovaks, 2 Dutch, 2 Thai, 1 Danish, 1 Estonian, 1 Hungarian, 1 Latvian, and 1 Salvadoran have died. More than 85% of these died after President Bush's announcement on May 1, 2003 that major combat was over.


There are more peacekeeper deaths in vehicular accidents yearly, according to the UN. EDITED: In UN actions, not with UN forces.

EDITED: I know you guys like some numbers, so here you go:

US Military Non-Hostile Deaths in 1980
Total: 2,391 | Accidental: 1577 | Illness: 401 | Homicide: 161 | Suicide: 236 | Undetermined: 15

In recent years, Non-Hostile deaths remain about the same in ratio to force strengths. There has been some improvement over non-hostile deaths due to illness and suicide.

Lenefir wrote:This time U.S. invades another country. A lot of foreign countries don't agree (to put it mildly). It's not supported in the U.N.


A lot of them do, for instance, our coalition partners. In the first Iraqi war there were 34. Currently, there are 30 members of our coalition.

Lenefir wrote:By your own words: U.S. constructed the government.


Of course those are by my own words. It's the truth. To be quite frank, the government we've constructed in Iraq is a fair government and interested in the welfare of it's people. Much more so than the last one.

In response to your 'so much for a safer world' comment, doing nothing wouldn't have lead to a safer world either.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:14 pm

Sarvis wrote:You're right, I'm sorry... <a href="http://www.bend.com/news/ar_view^3Far_id^3D18712.htm">Bush loves our Freedom</a>!


Looks to me like he's defending our right to choose who comes to our own parties.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:15 pm

Sarvis wrote:`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;


Sounds about right to me.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:19 pm

Lenefir wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:I'm only pointing out that the countries that are complaining about the war on terror have no right.

Please enlighten me... What is the link between complaining about the Iraq war and complaining about war on terror?

As far as I have understood, a lot of countries do the former, not so many do the latter.


I didn't say that there was a link, even though the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror.

What link do the prisoners in Guantanamo bay have to do with the prisoners from the war in Iraq? (they're mostly from afghanistan)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:30 am

A lot of them do, for instance, our coalition partners. In the first Iraqi war there were 34. Currently, there are 30 members of our coalition.


29 very small players and Britain. Don't forget Poland's recent abandonment of the project.

I beleive we started with 34 for this one actually, and the support keeps dropping...

Looks to me like he's defending our right to choose who comes to our own parties.


It's just funny that their only crime was wearing a shirt that said: "Protect our Civil Liberties." Apparently the Bush camp thought that was offensive...

That doesn't worry you at all?

I mean, these women had tickets, got in, were causing no problems.

They weren't openly protesting Bush or anything, they were sitting their quietly with shirts supporting Civil Liberties. I take it you don't like civil liberties either?

Then you better shut up, because one of them is free speech and you are abusing it with every post. ;)



Sounds about right to me.


Fine, as long as you realize you are now a terrorist because you were going 75mph.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:53 am

Sarvis wrote:29 very small players and Britain. Don't forget Poland's recent abandonment of the project.


They will begin a stepped withdrawl until January 2005, when free elections will be held to select an Iraq selected government. The US has not asked them to maintain their presence.

EDITED:
In the first Gulf war, most players were very small players. Major military forces included the United States (as usual), the British (still there), the ...French? (They DO have airplanes and it does make running away a lot faster.), and the Saudis.

As for ground troops, there was just the US, Brits, and the Saudis (who were not intended for major combat operations).

Sarvis wrote:I beleive we started with 34 for this one actually, and the support keeps dropping...


Support for the first Gulf War ultimately dropped to 19 countries. Ultimately, several UN members were even suggesting that we stop sanctioning Iraq.

Furthurmore, it was President Bush's decision to terminate the ground war, for which he was highly criticized at home and abroad.

Sarvis wrote:It's just funny that their only crime was wearing a shirt that said: "Protect our Civil Liberties." Apparently the Bush camp thought that was offensive...


Again, it's their party. I don't see you fighting for the dorks they don't let into nightclubs. Democrats don't let Republicans into their parties. Hell, the RNC even featured a Democrat, Zell Miller.

Sarvis wrote:That doesn't worry you at all?

I mean, these women had tickets, got in, were causing no problems.

They weren't openly protesting Bush or anything, they were sitting their quietly with shirts supporting Civil Liberties. I take it you don't like civil liberties either?


It does not worry me at all. Bush's party isn't the Supreme Court, where Flynt wore his famous F word shirt.

Sarvis wrote:Then you better shut up, because one of them is free speech and you are abusing it with every post. ;)


If you want to tell me to shut up, and that I am abusing free speech, then
I will give you a comment in kind. They say Ignorance spreads like wildfire. Is that why there are so many of you liberals posting here?

Sarvis wrote:Fine, as long as you realize you are now a terrorist because you were going 75mph.


If you're needlessly endangering the lives of others, YES, YOU ARE.

EDITED: By the way, driving in excess of the speed limit is a misdemeanor, not a felony, and therefore, you would have to be doing 30+ mph over the speed limit in most states. If you're doing 75 in a 45 zone, yes, you are a terrorist, and someone should stop you.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:32 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Furthurmore, it was President Bush's decision to terminate the ground war, for which he was highly criticized at home and abroad.


Since you're so knowledgeable I'm sure you know <i>why</i> Pres. Bush Sr. made that decision.

Why is it ok for Pres. Bush Jr. to do the opposite when his father understood how bad it could be?

<i>
Again, it's their party. I don't see you fighting for the dorks they don't let into nightclubs. Democrats don't let Republicans into their parties.</i>

Yes they do, go about halfway down.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Aug18.html

In fact, I don't think I've ever heard of anyone but Bush restrict people from going to campaign rallys. If only because they hoped to sway more voters from being undecided and such...


<i>
It does not worry me at all. Bush's party isn't the Supreme Court, where Flynt wore his famous F word shirt.</i>

Bush will be selecting quite a few judges during his next term though.

And he thinks people who simply want to support civil liberties are protesting against him... hrm...


If you want to tell me to shut up, and that I am abusing free speech, then
I will give you a comment in kind. They say Ignorance spreads like wildfire. Is that why there are so many of you liberals posting here?


I wasn't telling you to shut up. I was making a joke... thus the ;)

I was also making the point that you seem to enjoy free speech, yet you're supporting a candidate who seems to want to get rid of it.

If you're needlessly endangering the lives of others, YES, YOU ARE.


Hey, you're the one that said you were driving 75mph a couple posts ago.

EDITED: By the way, driving in excess of the speed limit is a misdemeanor, not a felony, and therefore, you would have to be doing 30+ mph over the speed limit in most states. If you're doing 75 in a 45 zone, yes, you are a terrorist, and someone should stop you.


Riiiiggggghhhhttttt.

People like you scare me. Go ahead and vote for Bush, because he is obviously perfect and if he wants to take away your rights then you must not need them.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:42 am

Sarvis wrote:Since you're so knowledgeable I'm sure you know <i>why</i> Pres. Bush Sr. made that decision.

Why is it ok for Pres. Bush Jr. to do the opposite when his father understood how bad it could be?


I don't see your arguement here. President Bush decided to put a stop to the war in order to avoid criticism of those at home and abroad, and the potential disintegration of the coalition. We can see now that the decision was a failure for the first part. The second part would have been true because we had the French.

This all lead to ten years of bombing Iraq and a whole bunch of other bad things, from embargos to sactions to everything. Mostly it was just not being able to work with the dictator who was concerned so much with his own power that he would go to kill thousands and thousands within his borders to keep it.

Sarvis wrote:In fact, I don't think I've ever heard of anyone but Bush restrict people from going to campaign rallys. If only because they hoped to sway more voters from being undecided and such...


They went to a rally with critical political messages on their shirts. Rallys are for supporters. If people walked in to a democractic rally with shirts saying "Kerry, Hell No - Choose Nader" or "Bush - Four More Years" I'm sure they'd be gone too. The same would go if they wore untruthful shirts like, "Kerry Burned Vietnamese Villages to the Ground"
.... actually, that's true. Anyway, shirts that would seem to accuse a candidate of having not done something, but that he feels that he had, would be rejected from a democratic rally as well... something like "Now Interviewing Intern Positions"

Sarvis wrote:Bush will be selecting quite a few judges during his next term though.

And he thinks people who simply want to support civil liberties are protesting against him... hrm...


The NRA supports civil liberties and they're for him.

Sarvis wrote:I wasn't telling you to shut up. I was making a joke... thus the ;)

I was also making the point that you seem to enjoy free speech, yet you're supporting a candidate who seems to want to get rid of it.


Very well, I accept your making of a joke. For the first part, I've not said which candidate I support, although I am voting for Bush. Secondly, Bush is a supporter of civil rights, including free speech. I mean, he makes up his own words even. If you want to talk about the censure of free speech, check out the media. On the today show, two conservatives snuck in signs that read "Don't Believe the Liberal Media" and were promptly ejected by security personnel.

But hey, you know, they were justified in doing so, right?

Sarvis wrote:Hey, you're the one that said you were driving 75mph a couple posts ago.


I was, in a 65mph zone with the flow of traffic. That's not endangerment.

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:EDITED: By the way, driving in excess of the speed limit is a misdemeanor, not a felony, and therefore, you would have to be doing 30+ mph over the speed limit in most states. If you're doing 75 in a 45 zone, yes, you are a terrorist, and someone should stop you.


Riiiiggggghhhhttttt.

People like you scare me. Go ahead and vote for Bush, because he is obviously perfect and if he wants to take away your rights then you must not need them.


Driving on public roads is not a right, but a priviledge. There is a reason for the rule of law. The law says that we cannot murder. In turn, the law states that we cannot drive recklessly or drunk.

If you were running down my neighborhood at 75 mph, and you hit any one of my neighbors, you'd better pray that the cops catch you before I did.

That kind of disreguard for life, the law, and public safety IS terrorism. It's about time they began to impose real penalties for people who act without reguard for others. Remember that part about a free society? The freedoms of individuals. Drive like you're trying to kill someone, and I promise you that someone like me is going to get you.

Just remember, the next time you are thundering down the road, if you are doing 30 over, a policeman has had and has now the power to put your butt in jail and I sincerely hope that they step up enforcement like they have for drunk driving.

When you drive recklessly, you take away my freedom to travel safely.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:38 am

[quote="teflor the ranger]
I don't see your arguement here. President Bush decided to put a stop to the war in order to avoid criticism of those at home and abroad, and the potential disintegration of the coalition. We can see now that the decision was a failure for the first part. The second part would have been true because we had the French.
[/quote]

Oh good, keep insulting other countries. Very big of you, very enlightened. Very... Republican.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam [in 1991], extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guidelines about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs . . . Would have have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling our as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles . . . Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome." " - Here's what Bush says on the matter.

No exit strategy, loss of world support, America forced to remain an occupying power on a hostile land. Yep, all come true!

They went to a rally with critical political messages on their shirts. Rallys are for supporters.


Important messages yes, but also a non-partisan message. Or at least it should be!

If people walked in to a democractic rally with shirts saying "Kerry, Hell No - Choose Nader" or "Bush - Four More Years" I'm sure they'd be gone too.


I guess you didn't read the link I gave you. Guess what, a guy tried that exact thing, at both a Kerry rally and a Bush rally. He was kicked out of the Bush rally, but left alone at the Kerry rally.


The same would go if they wore untruthful shirts like, "Kerry Burned Vietnamese Villages to the Ground" .... actually, that's true.


No, no it isn't. Why are all Bush supporters so delusional?

Seriously... you guys make claims like this all the time, without any substance or facts to back them up. Was this part of a SBVT ad maybe? I hope you realize how bad of liars those guys are.

Anyway, shirts that would seem to accuse a candidate of having not done something, but that he feels that he had, would be rejected from a democratic rally as well... something like "Now Interviewing Intern Positions"


Huh? On what basis do you believe that? And what the hell does interviewing interns have to do with political messages. I mean, if you were to try that at a Clinton rally or something he might smirk and nod knowingly but that's about it...



The NRA supports civil liberties and they're for him.


No, the NRA supports gun rights and not much else. The ACLU supports civil liberties, and they are for Kerry.

Very well, I accept your making of a joke. For the first part, I've not said which candidate I support, although I am voting for Bush.


You don't need to say something to make it clear...

Secondly, Bush is a supporter of civil rights, including free speech. I mean, he makes up his own words even.


Heh.

If you want to talk about the censure of free speech, check out the media. On the today show, two conservatives snuck in signs that read "Don't Believe the Liberal Media" and were promptly ejected by security personnel.

But hey, you know, they were justified in doing so, right?


So you claim.


I was, in a 65mph zone with the flow of traffic. That's not endangerment.


Yes it is. Speed limits are there for a reason. They are there because going faster than that limit makes you more likely to have an accident, having an accident endangers peoples lives.

Even if it isn't, all it takes is for some strict-minded politician to decide tomorrow that going 10mph over the limit is dangerous enough to warrant punishment as a terrorist.

That kind of disreguard for life, the law, and public safety IS terrorism.


No, no it isn't.

Stupidity maybe, wrong certainly. But not terrorism.

You're talking about someone in a hurry, or just not paying attention to his speed... not about someone planning to detonate a chemical weapon in a crowded stadium.

There is an entire world of difference between the two, and the fact that you are so willing to equate them scares those of us who are sane more than a little.

You would be that strict-minded politician I was just talking about.

When you drive recklessly, you take away my freedom to travel safely.


Meh. When you drive carefully, you take away my freedom to travel rapidly. ;)

(Again, a joke for the smiley recognition impared!)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:21 am

Sarvis wrote:"Trying to eliminate Saddam [in 1991], extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guidelines about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs . . . Would have have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling our as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles . . . Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome." " - Here's what Bush says on the matter.

No exit strategy, loss of world support, America forced to remain an occupying power on a hostile land. Yep, all come true!


So we just sat there and bombed them and contained them for ten years, outraging our Arab allies and angering the muslims instead with no viable exit strategy. - Even though we had not gone the invasion route.

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:If people walked in to a democractic rally with shirts saying "Kerry, Hell No - Choose Nader" or "Bush - Four More Years" I'm sure they'd be gone too.


I guess you didn't read the link I gave you. Guess what, a guy tried that exact thing, at both a Kerry rally and a Bush rally. He was kicked out of the Bush rally, but left alone at the Kerry rally.


Well, if intentional, it's admirable to allow one conservative in. Except for the fact that the liberal protestors at Bush's previous rallies have demonstrated extremely threatening behavior including rushing towards a former president's box.

While I'm only musing on this one, the incident may just go to show how poorly the Democrats understand and perform security.

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:The same would go if they wore untruthful shirts like, "Kerry Burned Vietnamese Villages to the Ground" .... actually, that's true.


No, no it isn't. Why are all Bush supporters so delusional?

Seriously... you guys make claims like this all the time, without any substance or facts to back them up. Was this part of a SBVT ad maybe? I hope you realize how bad of liars those guys are.


You're just as delusional. I could say the exact same thing as you, but hey, just for the sake of it, let me cite my source.

It's from a New York Time #1 Bestseller, Unfit for Command: SBV Speak Out Against John Kerry

It's actually not a SBVT ad, or even published under the group, but hey.

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Anyway, shirts that would seem to accuse a candidate of having not done something, but that he feels that he had, would be rejected from a democratic rally as well... something like "Now Interviewing Intern Positions"


Huh? On what basis do you believe that? And what the hell does interviewing interns have to do with political messages. I mean, if you were to try that at a Clinton rally or something he might smirk and nod knowingly but that's about it...


If you want to talk about denying that he made mistakes, you should have seen his impeachment proceedings.

Sarvis wrote:No, the NRA supports gun rights and not much else. The ACLU supports civil liberties, and they are for Kerry.


Gun Rights are a civil liberty. Furthermore, the ACLU is a collection of lawyers and their organizers. I've never seen them fight for gun rights.

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Very well, I accept your making of a joke. For the first part, I've not said which candidate I support, although I am voting for Bush.


You don't need to say something to make it clear...


That is the fundamental difference of opinion people keep talking about. Yes, something must be said to make things clear, particularly when you brought up something that wasn't.

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:If you want to talk about the censure of free speech, check out the media. On the today show, two conservatives snuck in signs that read "Don't Believe the Liberal Media" and were promptly ejected by security personnel.

But hey, you know, they were justified in doing so, right?


So you claim.


Heh heh heh. When was the last time the media bothered to cover a story where a conservative got repressed. If you want to read about it from the organization that actually pulled off the stunt, you can go HERE

To be quite frank, I'd like to see some real proof that these women were ejected from Bush's rally.

Sarvis wrote:Yes it is. Speed limits are there for a reason.


Yup.

Sarvis wrote:Even if it isn't, all it takes is for some strict-minded politician to decide tomorrow that going 10mph over the limit is dangerous enough to warrant punishment as a terrorist.


Except that no politician would ever do that. Particularly because states set traffic laws.

Sarvis wrote:You're talking about someone in a hurry, or just not paying attention to his speed...


http://www.ksat.com/news/3827010/detail.html

Sarvis wrote:There is an entire world of difference between the two, and the fact that you are so willing to equate them scares those of us who are sane more than a little.


http://www.vvdailypress.com/2004/108091484673745.html

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:When you drive recklessly, you take away my freedom to travel safely.


Meh. When you drive carefully, you take away my freedom to travel rapidly. ;)

(Again, a joke for the smiley recognition impared!)


There is such a thing as reckless driving, and a reason why it is a criminal law. In maryland, going 76 in a 50 zone isn't considered criminal, and therefore would be impossible to be tried as a terrorist, and to be labeled as one you must be convicted of it by a jury of your peers.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how government works.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:51 am

Sarvis wrote:Oh good, keep insulting other countries. Very big of you, very enlightened. Very... Republican.


Making fun of other countries is a time honored tradition worldwide, observe and learn!

America Bashing
(Thailand Artists)
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Stephff/main.asp
(Ukraine Loves us Too)
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Kodenko/main.asp
(Collection of World Cartoonists on US and Iraq)
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/IraqWorldAfter/main.asp

Russia Bashing
(Olle Johansson from Sweden)
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Terrori ... /olle9.jpg
(Thomas Boldt from Canada)
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Terrori ... es/tab.jpg
(Jim Morin from America)
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Terrori ... es/tab.jpg

Arab Bashing
(Joe Heller from America)
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/ReaganD ... heller.gif

Anyway, world's a better place when we make fun of other nations.


Sarvis wrote:Even if it isn't, all it takes is for some strict-minded politician to decide tomorrow that going 10mph over the limit is dangerous enough to warrant punishment as a terrorist.

...

You would be that strict-minded politician I was just talking about.


Actually, I'm all for higher speed limits and roads designed to handle them. The country could use a road building public works project nationwide right about now. And I certainly do like getting where I'm going faster.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:09 am

[quote="teflor the ranger
So we just sat there and bombed them and contained them for ten years, outraging our Arab allies and angering the muslims instead with no viable exit strategy. - Even though we had not gone the invasion route.
[/quote]

I didn't say Bush Sr. made the right decision, I said he understood that an occupation would also be a bad idea.


Well, if intentional, it's admirable to allow one conservative in. Except for the fact that the liberal protestors at Bush's previous rallies have demonstrated extremely threatening behavior including rushing towards a former president's box.


Let's not go down this route. Supporters of both sides have gotten pretty dirty, especially outside of rallies. We're talking about what the _administration_ did here, not what supporters did.


While I'm only musing on this one, the incident may just go to show how poorly the Democrats understand and perform security.


Or that they believe in an open society, the kind of society written about in our constitution.

Seriously, so what if a supporter from your opponent shows up at your rally? IF you're halfway worth voting for it would be an opportunity to sway him.

Again, however, this should have been a pretty non-partisan message.

And I think I forgot to mention: it was on public grounds, and the police were there for protection. That's not what I could consider a private event.



You're just as delusional. I could say the exact same thing as you, but hey, just for the sake of it, let me cite my source.

It's from a New York Time #1 Bestseller, Unfit for Command: SBV Speak Out Against John Kerry

It's actually not a SBVT ad, or even published under the group, but hey.


Ah, right... forgot sometimes you guys are just easily misled.

Explain how a book written by a guy who never served with Kerry is a credible source about what Kerry did in Vietnam?

Kerry was long gone before O'Neill showed up in that unit.

Wasn't he also pretty thoughourly discredited on Nightline the other day?


If you want to talk about denying that he made mistakes, you should have seen his impeachment proceedings.


That was a very, very sad chapter in American history. Seriously, who the hell cares if he got a little action on the side?



Gun Rights are a civil liberty. Furthermore, the ACLU is a collection of lawyers and their organizers. I've never seen them fight for gun rights.


Maybe, but they fight for all the rest. The NRA really seems to have gun rights covered... so why duplicate effort?


That is the fundamental difference of opinion people keep talking about. Yes, something must be said to make things clear, particularly when you brought up something that wasn't.


It was quite clear you were a Bush supporter. Unless you are referring to something else?


Heh heh heh. When was the last time the media bothered to cover a story where a conservative got repressed. If you want to read about it from the organization that actually pulled off the stunt, you can go HERE

[/quote]


So what's your point? I said this was a bad thing. You are the one arguing in favor of what that network did!

Unless your point is that the liberal biased media doesn't report when it happens to conservatives? Hell, the media hasn't really reported this yet.. just a handful of local papers. Bush probably got it silenced before it could go any further.

Besides, wouldn't you hear about us nasty liberals infringing upon conservative free speech rights on Fox news if it were happening?

Except that no politician would ever do that. Particularly because states set traffic laws.


And there are no state politicians?


I'll have to check out those links at another time, as I'm at work right now.

There is such a thing as reckless driving, and a reason why it is a criminal law. In maryland, going 76 in a 50 zone isn't considered criminal, and therefore would be impossible to be tried as a terrorist, and to be labeled as one you must be convicted of it by a jury of your peers.


Another 4mph and you would be a terrorist? Now _there_'s a great defense!

"I'm not _quite_ a terrorist?"


I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how government works.


Thisn from a guy who doesn't even think there are state politicians...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:25 am

Ok, I went looking for some books today...

I'll see your book, Unfit for Command:

Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War

And raise you four books:

The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception
Big Bush Lies: The 20 Most Telling Lies of President George W. Bush
The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq
Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You

Just something I noticed while looking for books today... heh.

Another thing I noticed is that that there are several books out there declaring liberals to be... disliked. Calling them traitors, saying they hate America...

Why all the venom from you guys? And why attack liberals personally instead of discussing why their ideas might not be quite as good as yours? Or, God forbid, trying to come to some kind of consensus that might actually improve the nation...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:43 am

I really do believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of our representative democracy. For the first part, when you speak of state politicians, this means that the power to decide what's right and wrong is never in the hands of one single person. In fact, it's in the hands of a wide varieties of cultures and diverse political thinking throughout the different areas of America.

Furthermore, in order to make a federal case of terrorism, a full investigation must be made by a federal law enforcement organization, and I highly doubt the FBI would even bother to take the time to scoff at someone's speeding ticket.

Going on, in our nation's courts, "I'm not quite a terrorist." Would be an awesome defense, as I'm sure the nation's judges feel that their time is more productively spent on the backlog of cases involving real crimes. There is also potentially 22 to 28 levels of the judicial system that you can appeal to in case one judge thinks you really need to be punished, which a lot of people probably do.

I am not making an attack on liberals. Bush is quite the liberal, by definition, he doesn't seem to be content to let anything alone. I am attacking this venomous poison that has held on to society, the insistance of the angry minority to avenge whatever they feel that everyone has done wrong to them in their eyes.

Where are the noble warriors that asked what they could do for their country? Rahter than tell the country what it should be doing for them. It may be that they all died on foreign battlefields defending your right to attack what America is doing. Your right to attack the efforts of our soldiers in Iraq, your right to allude to the President of The United States of America as 'another hitler.' Your right to say that people are being oppressed simply because they aren't invited to a political rally, although they have the right to say anything they want to say to the newspapers, the television, the internet, their neighbors, their dog, your mom, and the aliens that visit us from time to time. Not just your rights, but mine.

All I hear day in, day out, out of the liberals from the left, is that we shouldn't be doing this, we shouldn't be doing that, we should be doing this, we should be doing that.

What happened to we are?

We are Americans.

Don't say that we shouldn't be in Iraq.

We were Berliners, we are Iraqis.

Don't say that we shouldn't be like supposedly ignorant Texans.

At least in Texas, people would stop to help you change your tire, let you pass if you're going faster, and just plain have some civil courtesy.

Don't say that we should be appeasing our European allies.

We are the greatest friend that our allies have ever had. Nothing will ever change what we have done for each other, and we are bound to each other like family.

And if you can't say that you are an American, then I suggest you start asking questions, 'cause you have a lot to learn.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:53 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:I really do believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of our representative democracy. For the first part, when you speak of state politicians, this means that the power to decide what's right and wrong is never in the hands of one single person. In fact, it's in the hands of a wide varieties of cultures and diverse political thinking throughout the different areas of America.


It _should_ be. When there are only two parties there's a much smaller diversity of opinion. When one party controls the majority of the government, and Republicans do control congress and the Presidency and are picking people of like opinion for the Supreme Court, there is almost no diversity of opinion at all.

They can do what they want.

They ARE doing what they want.


<i>
Furthermore, in order to make a federal case of terrorism, a full investigation must be made by a federal law enforcement organization, and I highly doubt the FBI would even bother to take the time to scoff at someone's speeding ticket.
</i>

Unless they were outspoken against Bush?

Look, our Founding Fathers gave us all those rights and protections for a reason. That reason was NOT so that Bush and Rove could take them away at will.

You want to be patriotic? Stand up for the values our country were founded upon!

<i>
I am not making an attack on liberals. Bush is quite the liberal, by definition, he doesn't seem to be content to let anything alone. I am attacking this venomous poison that has held on to society, the insistance of the angry minority to avenge whatever they feel that everyone has done wrong to them in their eyes.
</i>

Remind me... who's the angry minority here? Are you saying it's those want Bush out, or those who are attacking other countries because the leader stopped doing what we asked?

<i>
Where are the noble warriors that asked what they could do for their country? Rahter than tell the country what it should be doing for them. It may be that they all died on foreign battlefields defending your right to attack what America is doing. </i>

DAMN STRAIGHT!

Our country is NOTHING without the ability of the populace to question it's actions.


<i>
Your right to attack the efforts of our soldiers in Iraq, your right to allude to the President of The United States of America as 'another hitler.' </i>

You are confusing me with someone else.

I am proud of what the <b>troops</b> are doing, well... except for the Abu Ghraib ones.

You are pulling that famous republican trick of confusing a lack of support for the war for a lack of support for the troops.

Simply put: I want our troops to have help out there. I want the infrastructure in Iraq rebuilt so that the citizenry stops hating us and trying to kill our soldiers. I want the sewer lines repaired so that raw sewage is not leaking into the water supply of half of Iraq.

These things are not happening simply because Bush went in with a "coalition" of nations who are too small to provide any real help.

I want our troops to be over there for the right reasons.

<i>Your right to say that people are being oppressed simply because they aren't invited to a political rally, although they have the right to say anything they want to say to the newspapers, the television, the internet, their neighbors, their dog, your mom, and the aliens that visit us from time to time. Not just your rights, but mine.</i>

They WERE invited.

They were kicked out afterwards, without causing any trouble whatsoever.

Explain to me please, PLEASE why the completely non-partisan message of "Protect Our Civil Liberties" was seen as protest at a Bush rally.

There is no reason whatsoever that it should be, and THAT'S the point.


<i>All I hear day in, day out, out of the liberals from the left, is that we shouldn't be doing this, we shouldn't be doing that, we should be doing this, we should be doing that.</i>

Just because we are the biggest, most badass nation on the planet does not give us the right to do anything we want.

We should be <i>better</i> than that.


<i>
What happened to we are?

We are Americans.

Don't say that we shouldn't be in Iraq.

We were Berliners, we are Iraqis.

Don't say that we shouldn't be like supposedly ignorant Texans.
</i>

I don't think I've ever mentioned Texans.

And what HAS happened to us? What happened to the country which rode to the rescue during WWII?

The citizens willing to endure rationing and make sacrifices for the troops who went.

Now the Republicans want to have a war while giving up nothing, and have our children pay the actual price.

There is something very wrong, very backwards about our current priorities.

We used to be better.

I'd gladly pay a little more in taxes in order to make sure our troops have all the support they need. I'd gladly restrict my driving, restrict my food so that troops could have supplies for the war.

Instead, we take out loan after loan and lower the taxes for the wealthy so they don't need to pay for the bullets they are sending our troops to use.

Then when we hit the country's legal credit limit they vote to raise it, rather than do something fiscally responsible.


<i>
At least in Texas, people would stop to help you change your tire, let you pass if you're going faster, and just plain have some civil courtesy.</i>

People do that everywhere. Not enough people, but I find it hard to believe all Texans are such saints.

<i>
Don't say that we should be appeasing our European allies.

We are the greatest friend that our allies have ever had. Nothing will ever change what we have done for each other, and we are bound to each other like family.
</i>

Yeah... keep believing that.

Right now if Europe wanted to invade us they would have all the justification they needed. Or at least all the justification we had for invading Iraq!

And if you can't say that you are an American, then I suggest you start asking questions, 'cause you have a lot to learn.


I can say that I'm an American.

It's people like you that I question.

Unwilling to sacrifice anything to help the war effort.

Unwilling to recognize a failed plan and a failed leader so they can vote for a new one.


Being American does NOT mean blind partisan loyalty.

Being American does NOT mean voting for the letter next to a candidates name.

Being American means questioning those in power.

Being American means making sure the country does the right thing.

Being American means doing what you can to make the America better and stronger.

I'm voting for Kerry because America will be stronger with him in charge.

So don't lecture ME on being American.

You don't understand the concept.

You think it's ok to harass people for using their rights.

You think it's ok for the President to lie to us at every turn.

You think it's just fine to attack other countries with no provocation and little reason.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lenefir
Sojourner
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby Lenefir » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:58 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
Lenefir wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Let's look at the facts. The war was fought in Iraq and is over.

Is it? Sure doesn't look like it from the daily casualties over there...

(Assuming it was read correctly from http://icasualties.org/oif/)
As of October 14, 2004, the coalition death toll in this conflict was 1,225. Of these, 1,087 Americans, 68 British, 19 Italians, 13 Polish, 11 Spanish, 9 Ukrainians, 6 Bulgarians, 3 Slovaks, 2 Dutch, 2 Thai, 1 Danish, 1 Estonian, 1 Hungarian, 1 Latvian, and 1 Salvadoran have died. More than 85% of these died after President Bush's announcement on May 1, 2003 that major combat was over.


There are more peacekeeper deaths in vehicular accidents yearly, according to the UN. EDITED: In UN actions, not with UN forces.

EDITED: I know you guys like some numbers, so here you go:

US Military Non-Hostile Deaths in 1980
Total: 2,391 | Accidental: 1577 | Illness: 401 | Homicide: 161 | Suicide: 236 | Undetermined: 15

In recent years, Non-Hostile deaths remain about the same in ratio to force strengths. There has been some improvement over non-hostile deaths due to illness and suicide.

We also like some pointer(s) to fairly trustworthy source(s) for any statistical data that is being thrown up (if it should have any relevance), but... Are you trying to imply that all is peace and quiet in Iraq, and those deaths over there are merely car accidents? That they were suicides?

Ok, let's be honest and divide the casualty list in Iraq into combat and non-combat deaths, which the site on the link I provided also gives along with things like name, age, rank, country, and cause of death.

Code: Select all

Cause of Death        Total    Percentage
Hostile fire           949      76.5%
Non-combat related     292      23.5%
Total                 1241

"Major combat" may be over, but you have to work a lot harder if you want to convince me the war is over.

And something I bumped into while peeking around for some backup of Teflor's claims... http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

teflor the ranger wrote:
Lenefir wrote:This time U.S. invades another country. A lot of foreign countries don't agree (to put it mildly). It's not supported in the U.N.


A lot of them do, for instance, our coalition partners. In the first Iraqi war there were 34. Currently, there are 30 members of our coalition.

Define coalition for me please so we perhaps can agree on something...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
"The Gulf War was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force of 34 nations led by the United States. The war started with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Iraq_war
"The 2003 invasion of Iraq began on March 19, 2003, when forces belonging primarily to the United States and the United Kingdom invaded Iraq. Ground forces from Australia and Poland and naval forces from Australia, Denmark and Spain also played a supporting role. [...] The start of hostilities came after the expiration of a 48-hour deadline which was set by U.S. President George W. Bush, demanding that Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq, ending the diplomatic Iraq disarmament crisis;"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coun ... aq_war.png
There are 193 countries in the world, the Iraq war has a country's government support from about 35-40 of them depending on how you count, and military support from how many contries? 10-11 or so?

And I find it a little amusing that in the first war Iraq invaded and got pushed out, but no further, and now, in the second war, some of the countries that pushed out now continues and invades...

teflor the ranger wrote:
Lenefir wrote:By your own words: U.S. constructed the government.


Of course those are by my own words. It's the truth. To be quite frank, the government we've constructed in Iraq is a fair government and interested in the welfare of it's people. Much more so than the last one.

I agree that intentions of the new government (most likely) are good, but you snipped out the other parts that you said and I commented on:

teflor the ranger wrote:Currently, America is an occupying power staying by the invitation of the government that the US has constructed to rule over the country.

Let me try once more, and reorder it so perhaps you see more clearly what you said yourself.
U.S. led military force invades Iraq and topples the government.
U.S. constructs a new government to rule.
This new government decides U.S. is good and nice (surprise!), and wants them to stay for different reasons.
Implicit meaning for a lot of people: U.S. controls both the government, the country, and all the resources in the country.

And that is why I pointed out that it's perhaps not so surprising many Iraqies (and a lot of other people in other (nearby) contries) are sceptical, and even takes up arms against the soldiers currently there.

teflor the ranger wrote:In response to your 'so much for a safer world' comment, doing nothing wouldn't have lead to a safer world either.

Let me again put up why I said "so much for a safer world":

(As I said, I can't find the actual link now, but)
Bush has said that "75 percent" of al Qaeda leaders have been "brought to justice." But as The Associated Press reported Oct. 1, Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of bin Laden's network at the time of the September 11 attacks -- not those who are running the terrorist organization today. The AP also reported that the CIA said earlier in the year two-thirds of those leaders are gone; at his acceptance speech in September, Bush increased his count to three-fourths based on unreleased intelligence data.

While on the other side:
International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted "conservative" intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.


So, no, I'm not convinced the Iraq war has made the world any safer, but rather on the contrary. But on the other hand, wouldn't it be so much easier of every country in the world were in the hands of the US, and everybody was a "faithful Christian" following the words of the "Holy Bible" and whatever the "Holy Spirit" might be saying to you, and not disputing whatever our Dear President may or may not be doing.
:roll:

*puts protection from fire on and goes hiding*
"Being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you; and if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch [...]. When you do things right, people won't be sure you have done anything at all"

--Futurama
Lenefir
Sojourner
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby Lenefir » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:07 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
Lenefir wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:
beto than you wrote:
Teflon wrote:America is an occupying power staying [in Iraq] by the invitation of the government that the US has constructed to rule over the country


You mean like Germans during WW2 were staying in France by invitation of Petain?

Teflon wrote:[Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay] are being held because they have demonstrated a potential threat to do harm to the United States. Every country has it's prisoners. From the Chinese political dissidents


well comparing US to China is a bit harsh but yer on right track...

B4 flames i cam not comparing US to Nazi or China. Just pointing out Teflor's flawed logic


I'm only pointing out that the countries that are complaining about the war on terror have no right.


Please enlighten me... What is the link between complaining about the Iraq war and complaining about war on terror?

As far as I have understood, a lot of countries do the former, not so many do the latter.


I didn't say that there was a link, even though the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror.

What link do the prisoners in Guantanamo bay have to do with the prisoners from the war in Iraq? (they're mostly from afghanistan)


Ok, I admit it. I obviously missed some vital point in that chain of arguments...
"Being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you; and if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch [...]. When you do things right, people won't be sure you have done anything at all"

--Futurama
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

A Closing Statement

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:35 am

While I was out of town this weekend, this thread seems to have been quite busy. Looking over the posts, I think it would be wise to give a closing statement. The problem with closing statements in our representative democracy, is that the debate never truly ends. Even if it is not debated around the dinner tables, it will be argued for and against by those afficionados, fundies, and even in the end by historians.

I thought the last post I had made would have been difficult to respond to and would have provoked a lot of closing arguements, but apprantly, not quite good enough. So, we'll give it a shot here.

Sarvis, you spoke a lot in your last post about sacrifices. I truly do not even slightly comprehend the claim you seem to be making that Republicans are not willing to sacrifice anything. The majority of our service members in harm's way(or out) are Republican, including myself. I don't know if you have earned the right to tell me that I do not know the meaning of sacrfice, much less than tell me that I am not willing to sacrifice for my country.

I can tell you that I've given some things up. My ultimate goal with my own life has been to study engineering to the point of earning a graduate level degree, then attend culinary school, preferably while I was still enlisted. This particular goal has been daunting while serving, and it has been difficult to plan life around the potential of being deployed to foreign lands. To this point, I have also sworn off having a family for fear that I might not be able to be enough for my loved ones. I also help my fellow service members cope with their difficulties, the hardships, and on occasion, their severe loss.

Currently, I am out of the services, and am exploring re-enlistment.

Sarvis, I would thank you not to question my sacrifice, I do enough of that on my own.

I also wanted to point out something that I've noticed from what you've been saying. You seem to fear the powers that the government has acquired recently with the Patriot act, and other such legislation, no matter that the powers granted in that act are potentially dangerous, rather than acutally dangerous. I also think that you fear the fact that the Republicans have the majority of the power in Congress.

Yes, the Republican party is the majority within the United States government, thanks to the last two elections (2000, 2002), and yes, they have been drafting quite a bit within the party lines and adjusting America in their shape. The only problem is that you fear their power.

I fear the abuse of power.

The power of your own government is not something that you need to fear, where governments go. The most fearful are the governments that aren't powerful enough to do good for their people. For instance, the standing government in Somolia has little power outside of their capital, where tribal warfare and genocide still ravage the coutry. Congo, where the government continues to battle rebel troops bent on eliminating their enemy by killing all it's people. Also, the powers of the American government in the era of the civil war, insufficient to keep the nation from launching itself into murderous combat where in single battles, four score more Americans would fall in a day than all of the deaths in this current Iraqi war.

Well then, speaking of power, Lincoln did some wild things while he was president. In one instance, he locked out the Maryland Congress to prevent them from voting whether or not to seperate from the Union, and arrested several dozen Maryland state legislators. He ordered the complete obliteration of infrastructure in the southern states, railroads, farms, everything burned to the ground, even towns that were sympathetic to the rebel cause. Much less ordering combat with southern troops, many once American soldiers themselves, and all serving some American state.

None of these are the powers of the President of the United States, even to this day. However, if he did not take those powers, the fate of America could have been far worse. One thing must be realized, and that is, that the power that a people lends to its government is a power that can only be sustained by its people. And the only thing to fear about that kind of power is it's negligent abuse.

Even if it's the kind of power that takes away a state's right to make and enforce it's own laws.

In so far, the current Congress and President have taken steps in protecting our rights. For instance, the repeal of the assault weaposn ban, allowing citizens to arm themselves sufficiently to defend their rights. Let it be known now that the right of the people to keep and bear arms helps defend their rights. Governments who wish to abuse their people have taken away their arms throughout the history of mankind.

Let's talk about Freedom for a moment. Is a country truly free if it's neighbors are not? Does simply building a big wall, and turning a blind eye make us free? The survival of the ideal of human freedom, that all humans have undeniable rights depends on all humans respsecting this concept. It has nothing to do with being Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or otherwise. This will tie into the rest of this post in just a second.

Now let me respond to the comments Sarvis made at the end of his post. Sarvis, although I had not accused him of anything personally, and if he re-reads the post will SEE that I was discussing his rights (and mine, read that last sentance too). But he has accused me of several things anyway, so if it's going to get personal, I will give a single response.



"It's people like you that I question."



Sarvis, you don't know anything about me. Don't even pretend like you do, if I were to ask you such simple questions as "What race am I?" or "What religion am I, if any?" I think you would fail quite badly.



"Unwilling to sacrifice anything to help the war effort."



I will repeat what I had swore, on September 9th, 2001:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

So far, so good.



"Unwilling to recognize a failed plan and a failed leader so they can vote for a new one."



Afghanistan where elections have been held for the first time to select a representative government of and for the people without another hundred years of civil war?

Iraq, where elections are to be held in January, Saddam Hussein has been captured, and his armies dismantled?

I don't see failure in the cards here. If we had failed, maybe my brothers and sisters in the armed services would have stopped fighting.

Furthermore, the spread of human freedom will never be a failure until at the very least I have ceased to breathe. On top of that, lack of support for the war is a lack of support for the troops. We're trying to fight a war here, can you tell me WHY IN HELL Kerry voted against our damn support?



"You think it's ok to harass people for using their rights."



I've not harassed anyone, this is a public forum and we are having what's called a..... discussion? Yes, I think that where people have dialogue and exchange ideas.

Furthermore, CRITICISM is a form of speech, which is protected under the rights to FREE SPEECH.



"You think it's ok for the President to lie to us at every turn."



No, I don't.



"You think it's just fine to attack other countries with no provocation and little reason."



I believe there must be justification for warfare. For the damages being done in Iraq, I believe that it was the right decision to invade. So does Bush, and so does Kerry, from time to time.



Now in response to Lenefir, yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. The government in Iraq was created by the US. I'd like to point out that the US is somewhat of an expert in government building, citing the success of the German and Japanese governments Post-World War II. You'll notice that both of their constitutions were drafted just after the war, and their included basic human rights attachments smack of American ideals, especially when you consider their constitutions before World War II.

Either way, the UN has been invited to help conduct free elections for Iraq, and thusly, worries that Americans will abuse their stay in Iraq may be abated to acceptable levels.

Switching back to Sarvis, I am going to question our government right here and now.

Senator Kerry voted against 87 billion in funding for the Iraq war, including funding for our troops and body armor for my deployed comrades. Why?

Senator Kerry did NOT vote on SRes 356, condemning the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Why?

(this one came as a moderate suprise)

Senator Kerry DID vote FOR HR3162, the Patriot act. ...Why?

By the way Sarvis, I do want to address the questions you gave to me, but I don't think anyone cares about some of them so check your private messages and most of them should be answered there.

While we're at it, let's ask some other governments some questions too. For instance, Japan, why are you in Iraq despite your dedication to pacifism? For this answer, allow us to look at their Constitution.

"We believe that no nation is responsible to itself alone, but that laws of political morality are universal; and that obedience to such laws is incumbent upon all nations who would sustain their own sovereignty and justify their sovereign relationship with other nations. We, the Japanese people, pledge our national honor to accomplish these high ideals and purposes with all our resources."

For that matter, why did Great Britan decide to join the war in Iraq? Let's see some quotes from Tony Blair:

"At the outset I say: it is right that this House debate this issue and pass judgement. That is the democracy that is our right but that others struggle for in vain."

"For too long the world ignored the plight of the Iraqi people. That was wrong. We know and understand that many of you live in fear of Saddam. We promise that the events of 1991 will not happen again. We have pledged to remove Saddam. And we will deliver. Once he is gone, we will help Iraq rebuild itself, and become once more a member of the international family of nations."




Let's tie in Freedom.

I would like to introduce a line from the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (their constitution).

Article I, Concerning the Protection fo Human Dignity

Line 2
The German people therefore acknowledge involable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.

Of peace and of justice.

Without justice for those who have died under Saddam's chemical weapons, or those who lie in his mass graves, there can be no peace.

For ten years we shot at each other across the lines, shooting down Iraqi aircraft, bombing their radar sites and their WMD facilities, bogged down in the kind of trench warfare that has only political lines.

Iraq gave full and final declarations that all WMD had been destroyed in their country in 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998.

Each time found to be untrue by UN inspectors.

UN inspectors were thrown out of the country just before 1999. The UN did not move for four years.

At the last minute, before the coalition began moving troops into Iraq, the UN inspectors were allowed into the country briefly, and Iraq again made a 'full' and 'final' delcaration.

Crying wolf?

For the victims of Saddam, there had been no justice. For the members of the international community, there was no assurance of security. Furthermore, the people of the world were no better than those who had committed the great attrocities in Iraq, as we stood by and watched it happen.

It is our choice to recognize the right of all people to be free.

Stand by we will no more.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: A Closing Statement

Postby Sarvis » Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:26 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:Sarvis, you spoke a lot in your last post about sacrifices. I truly do not even slightly comprehend the claim you seem to be making that Republicans are not willing to sacrifice anything. The majority of our service members in harm's way(or out) are Republican, including myself. I don't know if you have earned the right to tell me that I do not know the meaning of sacrfice, much less than tell me that I am not willing to sacrifice for my country.

I can tell you that I've given some things up. My ultimate goal with my own life has been to study engineering to the point of earning a graduate level degree, then attend culinary school, preferably while I was still enlisted. This particular goal has been daunting while serving, and it has been difficult to plan life around the potential of being deployed to foreign lands. To this point, I have also sworn off having a family for fear that I might not be able to be enough for my loved ones. I also help my fellow service members cope with their difficulties, the hardships, and on occasion, their severe loss.

Currently, I am out of the services, and am exploring re-enlistment.

Sarvis, I would thank you not to question my sacrifice, I do enough of that on my own.


I did not realize you were in the military. I apologize for questioning your sacrifice. Obviously everyone in the military is making deep sacrifices these days.

However, my point was, and remains, that very few in this country are making any sacrifices for you. Most notably the people who decided to wage this war, and the wealthy who are benefitting from hute tax cuts.

Complaining that there is not enough body armor or vehicle armor is a bit disengenuous when none of them are willing to deal with slightly higher taxes to pay for it. To me anyway.

I also wanted to point out something that I've noticed from what you've been saying. You seem to fear the powers that the government has acquired recently with the Patriot act, and other such legislation, no matter that the powers granted in that act are potentially dangerous, rather than acutally dangerous. I also think that you fear the fact that the Republicans have the majority of the power in Congress.


No, not really.

I don't fear much because I don't think of it much. If I did my argument would have been a bit stronger.

However, you admit there is potential for abuse. Where there is potential there is a corrupt man waiting to exploit it.


Yes, the Republican party is the majority within the United States government, thanks to the last two elections (2000, 2002), and yes, they have been drafting quite a bit within the party lines and adjusting America in their shape. The only problem is that you fear their power.

I fear the abuse of power.


As well you should. What makes you think they are not abusing their power already?

The power of your own government is not something that you need to fear, where governments go. The most fearful are the governments that aren't powerful enough to do good for their people. For instance, the standing government in Somolia has little power outside of their capital, where tribal warfare and genocide still ravage the coutry. Congo, where the government continues to battle rebel troops bent on eliminating their enemy by killing all it's people. Also, the powers of the American government in the era of the civil war, insufficient to keep the nation from launching itself into murderous combat where in single battles, four score more Americans would fall in a day than all of the deaths in this current Iraqi war.


So you don't agree with the Founding Fathers' assessment that the power of government should be limited?


Well then, speaking of power, Lincoln did some wild things while he was president. In one instance, he locked out the Maryland Congress to prevent them from voting whether or not to seperate from the Union, and arrested several dozen Maryland state legislators. He ordered the complete obliteration of infrastructure in the southern states, railroads, farms, everything burned to the ground, even towns that were sympathetic to the rebel cause. Much less ordering combat with southern troops, many once American soldiers themselves, and all serving some American state.


I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Trying to portray Bush as another Lincoln...?

I'll just post this:

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3949543.stm"> "Apparently, to avoid this cognitive dissonance, Bush supporters suppress awareness of unsettling information." </a>

(Second entry down.)

None of these are the powers of the President of the United States, even to this day. However, if he did not take those powers, the fate of America could have been far worse. One thing must be realized, and that is, that the power that a people lends to its government is a power that can only be sustained by its people. And the only thing to fear about that kind of power is it's negligent abuse.


If that were true then either Saddam was not to be feared, or no matter what we do a new Saddam will arise in January.

Even if it's the kind of power that takes away a state's right to make and enforce it's own laws.

In so far, the current Congress and President have taken steps in protecting our rights. For instance, the repeal of the assault weaposn ban, allowing citizens to arm themselves sufficiently to defend their rights. Let it be known now that the right of the people to keep and bear arms helps defend their rights. Governments who wish to abuse their people have taken away their arms throughout the history of mankind.


They've also taken away freedom of speech, and punished those who disagreed with them. The fact that Bush is doing it in the wrong order does not inspire very much faith in his actions...


Let's talk about Freedom for a moment. Is a country truly free if it's neighbors are not? Does simply building a big wall, and turning a blind eye make us free? The survival of the ideal of human freedom, that all humans have undeniable rights depends on all humans respsecting this concept. It has nothing to do with being Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or otherwise. This will tie into the rest of this post in just a second.


But can someone _give_ people freedom, or do they need to earn it so they can appreciate it?

We seem all to ready to give it up over here, because so very few of us have ever needed to work for it. Most don't even vote!

Now let me respond to the comments Sarvis made at the end of his post. Sarvis, although I had not accused him of anything personally, and if he re-reads the post will SEE that I was discussing his rights (and mine, read that last sentance too). But he has accused me of several things anyway, so if it's going to get personal, I will give a single response.


Sorry, I must have gotten confused when, in a reply to my post, you used the word "you." I must have misunderstood that. "You " <i>obviously</i> meant everyone but me. You definately could not have meant I can't say I'm an American becuase I have a lot to learn, because the word "you" would never possibly refer to the person you are replying to.


"It's people like you that I question."

Sarvis, you don't know anything about me. Don't even pretend like you do, if I were to ask you such simple questions as "What race am I?" or "What religion am I, if any?" I think you would fail quite badly.


True, but I can say with certainty that you don't seem to mind giving up your civil rights and are a little unclear on the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

I will repeat what I had swore, on September 9th, 2001:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


I already apologized for this.

But can you explain what attacking Iraq has to do with defending the Constitution? And why you are defending Bush when he has started to infringe upon the rights gauranteed in the Constitution? You swore to do the opposite.

Afghanistan where elections have been held for the first time to select a representative government of and for the people without another hundred years of civil war?


We'll need to keep an eye on this. Hopefully it works out, though I have heard some say that we pulled too many troops out of Afghanistan which may lead to some very dangerous times ahead.

Hopefully it works out though.


Iraq, where elections are to be held in January, Saddam Hussein has been captured, and his armies dismantled?


Iraq, where Rumsfeld has told us the elections will likely only represent some portion of the country? Where insurgents are currently killing more of our soldiers than Saddam's army ever did? Where the violence and unrest provide excellent fodder for <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3756650.stm">terrorist recruitment</a>?


I don't see failure in the cards here. If we had failed, maybe my brothers and sisters in the armed services would have stopped fighting.


Like the guys refusing to go on missions now because it is too dangerous?

Can they stop fighting? Not like the government is going to bring them home if they just decide to stop fighting, they aren't even allowing them to come home when their tour of duty is supposed to be over!

Furthermore, the spread of human freedom will never be a failure until at the very least I have ceased to breathe. On top of that, lack of support for the war is a lack of support for the troops. We're trying to fight a war here, can you tell me WHY IN HELL Kerry voted against our damn support?


Yes.

He wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund it, so he voted for a version of the bill which would do that. When that failed he voted against the bill which used deficit spending, knowing that it would either pass anyway or be rewritten into a more favorable form.

This is not new news, of course, and it saddens me that you have bought into the Bush propaganda rather than looking past it.

That's the whole "republicans not wanting to sacrifice anything" for the war effort thing. They are having our children and grandchildren pay for it, when we could be paying for it now.

On a related note, America has <a href="http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/archivedStory.asp?archive=true&dist=ArchiveSplash&siteid=mktw&guid=%7BD7522DD9%2D52A6%2D4DE0%2D9BBC%2D53722795382C%7D&returnURL=%2Fnews%2Fstory%2Easp%3Fguid%3D%7BD7522DD9%2D52A6%2D4DE0%2D9BBC%2D53722795382C%7D%26siteid%3Dmktw%26dist%3D%26archive%3Dtrue%26param%3Darchive%26garden%3D%26minisite%3D"> reached it's credit limit.</a>.

I've not harassed anyone, this is a public forum and we are having what's called a..... discussion? Yes, I think that where people have dialogue and exchange ideas.

Furthermore, CRITICISM is a form of speech, which is protected under the rights to FREE SPEECH.


I didn't say YOU had harassed people. I'm referring to your support of the harrassment of the "Protect our Civil Liberties" women. You think it is ok, because obviously the public rally, being held on public grounds, with public security is the "wrong place" to "criticize" Bush with a message as benign as "Protect our Civil Liberties."


Yes, criticism is a form of free speech. So why are you supporting Bush when he doesn't allow people to criticize him?



"You think it's ok for the President to lie to us at every turn."

No, I don't.


That's funny... you're still supporting Bush...?


I believe there must be justification for warfare. For the damages being done in Iraq, I believe that it was the right decision to invade. So does Bush, and so does Kerry, from time to time.


I said it before, and I'll say it again:

The justification we used to invade Iraq could be used just as easily against us.


Switching back to Sarvis, I am going to question our government right here and now.

Senator Kerry voted against 87 billion in funding for the Iraq war, including funding for our troops and body armor for my deployed comrades. Why?

Senator Kerry did NOT vote on SRes 356, condemning the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Why?

(this one came as a moderate suprise)

Senator Kerry DID vote FOR HR3162, the Patriot act. ...Why?


I explained the first one already, I have no idea on the Abu Ghraib thing but I hear it is fairly common practice for Senators to "trade votes" by both agreeing to not vote on an issue if they need to be elsewhere and their votes are opposing. Ie. If Hillary Clinton was going to vote No, and Kerry was going to vote Yes they just both agree not to vote.

I can't explain the Patriot Act one either, but I would point out that there is only one person who didn't vote for it and there are now many people who criticize it within the senate. Perhaps they acted hastily out of fear, or didn't give it enough consideration first.

By the way Sarvis, I do want to address the questions you gave to me, but I don't think anyone cares about some of them so check your private messages and most of them should be answered there.


Haven't gotten any...

While we're at it, let's ask some other governments some questions too. For instance, Japan, why are you in Iraq despite your dedication to pacifism? For this answer, allow us to look at their Constitution.

"We believe that no nation is responsible to itself alone, but that laws of political morality are universal; and that obedience to such laws is incumbent upon all nations who would sustain their own sovereignty and justify their sovereign relationship with other nations. We, the Japanese people, pledge our national honor to accomplish these high ideals and purposes with all our resources."

For that matter, why did Great Britan decide to join the war in Iraq? Let's see some quotes from Tony Blair:

"At the outset I say: it is right that this House debate this issue and pass judgement. That is the democracy that is our right but that others struggle for in vain."

"For too long the world ignored the plight of the Iraqi people. That was wrong. We know and understand that many of you live in fear of Saddam. We promise that the events of 1991 will not happen again. We have pledged to remove Saddam. And we will deliver. Once he is gone, we will help Iraq rebuild itself, and become once more a member of the international family of nations."

Let's tie in Freedom.

I would like to introduce a line from the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (their constitution).

Article I, Concerning the Protection fo Human Dignity

Line 2
The German people therefore acknowledge involable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.



I hope this means Japan and Britain will be invading the Sudan next, so we can stop that nasty genocide.

Of course, I haven't heard any government ever talk about anything like that for some reason...


(I would support this if it happened! As long as we were told up front that this was the reason, and we had a viable strategy to control the region of course.)


Of peace and of justice.

Without justice for those who have died under Saddam's chemical weapons, or those who lie in his mass graves, there can be no peace.

For ten years we shot at each other across the lines, shooting down Iraqi aircraft, bombing their radar sites and their WMD facilities, bogged down in the kind of trench warfare that has only political lines.

Iraq gave full and final declarations that all WMD had been destroyed in their country in 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998.

Each time found to be untrue by UN inspectors.

UN inspectors were thrown out of the country just before 1999. The UN did not move for four years.

At the last minute, before the coalition began moving troops into Iraq, the UN inspectors were allowed into the country briefly, and Iraq again made a 'full' and 'final' delcaration.


And the only way to find out for sure was an invasion? I thought we had spies...

Crying wolf?

For the victims of Saddam, there had been no justice. For the members of the international community, there was no assurance of security. Furthermore, the people of the world were no better than those who had committed the great attrocities in Iraq, as we stood by and watched it happen.

It is our choice to recognize the right of all people to be free.

Stand by we will no more.


We won't?

Where are the plans for invading Sudan? Or any other brutal, genocidal dictatorship you care to name?



Again, you can search for the old thread during the buildup to the Iraq war. I was in favor of it largely because of the genocide Saddam was commiting against the Marsh Arabs.

However, this is not what Bush told us. We did not go in with a valid plan for keeping the peace, and NOW it seems as if we're expecting the January elections to magically solve all of our problems with insurgents.

You'll have to forgive me for not having faith in the current leadership...
Last edited by Sarvis on Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Tuga
Sojourner
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Postby Tuga » Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:08 pm

G'day everyone,

I finished reading this very interesting post after 6 months away from any internet( cause we had no internet where we were in Iraq ).

I tend to agree with the anyone that says that America needs a leader with 'action' to finish what you guys have started.

I also agree with many of you that feel 'lied to' about the reason of going to war. I myself was all pro war Iraq before war started but changed my minded as soon as they( Bush, Blair and Howard ) changed their tune of WMDs to liberation of Iraqi ppl. Not that I am against those ppl being free of the previous regime. Not at all. I hope they go on to live a happy liberated life once someone takes command in Iraq.

But if you think that they are free, then you are sadly mistaken. After actually be on the ground you can see that they are more restricted in their liberties than they were b4, because b4 the only real thing that was forbidden was free speech, voting or if you were a Kurd(10% population i believe)

I also want America to have an 'action man' (and I'm not American) as their leader, since you have decided a very long time ago, to be the 'sherriff' of the world. But plz it's my humble no-bias opinion to prefer a 'no action man' than one that takes the wrong action for the sake of all of us.

Your sincerely

Tuga the Sunless Troll

PS: for those of you that dont know who Howard is, He's the Prime Miniter of Australia, and he just won the elections again! BASTARD!
Last edited by Tuga on Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:43 pm

"It's because I believe that freedom depends on all people being free, that the middle eastern peoples are our brothers, and that all are created equal'.

You should try communist liberation theory.
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:06 am

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:
To the first point, you can think of it as either an attack on gay marriages or a defense of straight marriages. Quite frankly, there is nothing in the constitution about marriages at all right now, so it's fine to work with as a starting point.


Umm... no. Nothing about allowing gay marriages is a danger to straight marriages.

Nothing.

In fact, it would probably lower the divorce rate eventally as gay people would feel less social pressure to "live a lie" by marrying someone of the opposite sex.


Do you have any statistics on what fraction of those marriages end in divorce? I'm curious.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'
Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'
Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:12 am

Sarvis wrote:Just something I noticed while looking for books today... heh.

Another thing I noticed is that that there are several books out there declaring liberals to be... disliked. Calling them traitors, saying they hate America...

Why all the venom from you guys? And why attack liberals personally instead of discussing why their ideas might not be quite as good as yours? Or, God forbid, trying to come to some kind of consensus that might actually improve the nation...


Sarvis, many of your arguments are well thought-out, but I cannot at this moment believe that this particular one ("you guys") is anything but a poor attempt to drag guilt by association into this.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'

Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'

Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:14 am

Sarvis wrote:Here's the actual text from the actual <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:46:./temp/~c107MzkC4t:e332632:">USA Patriot Act</a>:


`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--


`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

Speeding is dangerous and illegal, therefore you are now a terrorist.

IT's unlikely that the law would be applied that way... but it can be if they want.


EDIT:

Ok, so apparently when you do a search you get a temporary link to the document.

So if you wanna read what I'm talking about in the Patriot Act

Go to http://thomas.loc.gov

search for Bill number H.R.3162, but make sure you do it under the 107th congress link at the top of the page.

Then you want TITLE VIII--STRENGTHENING THE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST TERRORISM
Then SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.


Really sucks that you can't link to it...


To be fair to you, Sarvis, you can link to this:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/anniesj/331112.html

And while the veracity of the story is an open question, what struck me was that the scenario it describes is not at all out of the question.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'

Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'

Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:24 pm

moritheil wrote:
In fact, it would probably lower the divorce rate eventally as gay people would feel less social pressure to "live a lie" by marrying someone of the opposite sex.


Do you have any statistics on what fraction of those marriages end in divorce? I'm curious.


No, but as has been mentioned before I suck at finding statistics.

It _does_ happen though. I know that from personal experience...

Sarvis, many of your arguments are well thought-out, but I cannot at this moment believe that this particular one ("you guys") is anything but a poor attempt to drag guilt by association into this.


I was just musing. It wasn't directed at Teflor, as he hasn't been so much the Liberal bashing guy around here...

To be fair to you, Sarvis, you can link to this:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/anniesj/331112.html
And while the veracity of the story is an open question, what struck me was that the scenario it describes is not at all out of the question.


Cute...


<b>Teflor</b>

I never got any private messages from you dude...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:24 am

Heavy-handed tyranny, which is what it could be percieved as, is cute. I'll remember that.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'

Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'

Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:37 pm

moritheil wrote:Heavy-handed tyranny, which is what it could be percieved as, is cute. I'll remember that.


That was heavy handed sarcasm by the way...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:25 am

Here's a post I made on Gamefaqs a couple days ago. The title of the topic was "Why so much hate against Bush?"

This was my answer:

How about because Bush told Congress his Medicaid bill would only cost $395 billion so they would pass it, then when it was passed we found out he had forced people to lie about the cost which would be around $100 billion more expensive?

Is that good enough of a reason to hate him?

Or should we add in that he chose the day Saddam was captured to sign parts of the highly unpopular Patriot Act II into law, on a Saturday. Presidents almost never sign bills on the weekend, but Saddam's capture meant the news wouldn't be talking about this at all so he could sign the bill in secret.

Need more?

How about cutting the funding for Superfund from $300+ billion to something like $38 billion. Superfund is supposed to be cleaning up toxic waste that was improperly disposed of, to prevent things like Love Canal from happening again. Because of these budge cuts 1 in 4 Americans are now being exposed to toxic chemicals.

Still want more?

He told us he needed to invade Iraq because they possessed WMD. Now he keeps changing his story as to why we are there. Fora while it was to liberate the Iraqi people, but now that's looking less likely since Rumsfeld thinks elections won't be able to be held across the entire country. So now it's because they had the capability of making WMD, not because they had them.
He lied to us to start a war.

That seems a good reason...

More you say?

Ok.

He cut taxes when he was waging a war. He cut taxes for the rich while waging a war. This means we have to use deficit spending to pay for it, while his base (as he calls the elite) pays nothing and then yells at liberals for not supporting the troops.

If THEY wanted to support the troops, they would have raised taxes on the rich to pay for body armor.

Still more reasons?

His "Jobs Plan" is to encourage outsourcing and improve education. In other words his plan is basically a pro-corporation education plan. He tells me, a college graduate, that I need to go back to school for more training in order to get a job now. I just finished school, I ran out of financial aid and already cannot pay off my loans. Even if I could go back, there's no gaurantee new jobs will be available when I get a new degree since he's not actually doing anything to create those jobs!

I could probably go on for hours... but this should be enough of an answer.
Why so much hate against President Bush indeed..




END GAMEFAQS POST

I know some of that, especially the last couple things, are controversial around here and saying some of them touched off this 7 page argument. But some of those things, such as the Medicaid bill and Superfund budget cuts shouldn't really be controversial. So please give those some thoughts...

Unfortunately I'll be at work all night now, but I might come home before I go vote...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests