204 Forum Posts by "AnkhX100"
At 11/20/06 10:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: It's our country and we do what we want to. In other words, if the U.S. wants to have a gerrymandering 700 mile stretch of ordinance disposal along it's southern border, who is anyone else to say otherwise?
Intentionally setting out land mines to kill people who are the victims of American agricultural protectionism goes against the mantra of.....what was it again?
Oh, yes, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". So yeah, it is anti-American to do so, and you might as well defecate on the Statue of Liberty while you're at it.
At 11/20/06 10:05 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: How about we create a 100 yd deep land mind disposal area along our entire border. Leave signs in Spanish that say "Danger, ordnance disposal areas".
No illegal immigrant would cross in their right mind, it would serve as an excellent deterent.
I'm just wondering....why is it in America's interest to kill a bunch of poor peasants who really haven't committed a crime that deserves such harsh methods?
OMG, teh immigrants are takinx r jobz! O Noesssss!
Funny how people will always blame "the other" (be they Jews, Blacks, Gays, Immigrants, etc) when there's an ill in society. I guess it's easier to pick a fall guy than fix the problem (economics, in this case).
At 6/8/06 09:33 PM, Buckdich wrote: I am sure he cared and loved for someone. I am sure that he picked flowers and brought them to his mother to make her happy.
I am sure he had a more soft side to him.
Everyone can love.
Well, apparently he didn't think of that when he beheaded Nicholas Bergs' head, dangling in front of a camera while exclaiming "Allahu Akbar!". Where was his humanity at that moment? Or any other moment during his reign of terror. How many fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, brother and sisters has HE killed. If his death has brought even a bit of relief to his victims, if his has saved future lives, then its fantastic that that dirt bag died.
Seriously, stop this whining about people who are justly ridiculing him, because he lost any respect you would give the dead.
At 6/8/06 09:21 PM, Buckdich wrote: How can you people be so heartless?
Laughing at a dead, evil person is okay. Leading an insurgency which has left thousands dead, fermenting civil war, and not to mention personally beheading defenseless people IS heartless.
At 6/8/06 04:08 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: It's true. Someone else will just step up and take his place.
I really doubt it. You have to remember that the thing that probably led to Zarqawi's demise was his high profile and disagreements within Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda in Iraq. What will happen now is that the insurgency in Iraq will fracture in local cells, much in the same affect that happened when bin Laden lost his base in Afghanistan, but the localized cells will be more secretive than the highly centralized Al-Qaeda in Iraq led by Zarqawi.
At 6/5/06 11:09 AM, Rafalus0 wrote: Peru became Fascist
With the victory of Alan Garcia, democracy in Peru has died for sure. Surely Bush has got something to do with the upbringing of this mass murderer who hates socialists and all other people alike. I think that Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia, should break diplomatic relations with Peru in defense of democracy and against fascist Alan Garcia.
>:-(
It's seems funny how you can call a Centrist such as Alan Garcia a Fascist, while you call Cuba a Democracy. Doesn't that seems a bit hypcritical? No, not hypocritical, moronic.
So what? This makes it the 2nd or 3rd time our forces almost captured him? Lucky bastard.
I really don't know how Vietnam or Iraq, much less WWI or Korea had anything to do with our freedom as a people, so I'll take the poem as yet another pro-war tactic.
My understanding was the family members of those who died in United 93 helped in making the movie to make it as historically accurate as possible. So if those closest to the tragedy are okay with the movie, and encouraging the movie's release, then how is it wrong?
At 4/19/06 10:10 PM, CallMeTrent wrote: No.
High Ranking officals even said that the Japanese would of surrendered even with interference from Russia.
Japan could of brough peace by agreeing to the Postam Declaration, but they didn't, so they didn't. They could of stop at Okinawa, but they continued to fight.
Not only that, the Japanese planned to divert the planned American-led invasion, named Ketsu-Go. This operation planned for extensive Kamikaze attacks to the US and Commonwealth fleet, about 10,000 planes to use.
Also, the entire civilian population of Japan was told and trained to fight the invasion to the death, formed in the "Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps". They were to fight in a similar resistance offered at Okinawa to the Americans.
Estimates ranged that several million Japanese were to die, and that much of the Japanese industires and landscape destroyed.
It seems to me that you are simply jumping onto the "America is evil" bandwagon. The United States did not start the war, it did not kill millions in China, nor did it enslave enemy POWs and forced them in death marches. We didn't do that.
Nor did we refuse an offer for surrender 4 months before the atomic bombings.
Japan brought it about itself. and considering that Japan is an economic power in the world, and a prosperous democracy, so Japan hasn't suffered much as a whole.
The atomic bombings forced Hirohito to consider the pleas of the civilian cabinet members to surrender.
:They also say that the Japanese were on the verge of collapse, with or without an atomic bomb.
Civilian officials in the Japanese cabinet were seeking peace, but as for the military heads, led by Tojo, had much more influece over Hirohito,
:So why did they feel the need to commit such a horrible crime?
Try reading my post completely, even the quotes before posting.
At 4/19/06 09:48 PM, CallMeTrent wrote: Final notes:
[America] had already been bombing 60 of Japan's largest cities, killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process.
Who attacked Pearl Harbor? Japan started the war, so they had to realize what they were starting.
Japan was already ready (and trying) for surrender.
They were offered a chance to surrender at Postdam, and they refused, and they continued to kill our soldiers, so that's bull.
Japan was already on the verge of collapse.
Yeah, but the Japanese are not like the Germans, they were not going to surrender that easily. Look at Okinawa and Iwo Jima as examples.
The Soviet Union was about to enter the war.
They did enter the war, and mowed down the Japanese troops in Manchuria, and driving them out of Korea, all in a few weeks.
And do you think that Japap wouldn't be split into two like Germany or Korea? Better for Japan to suffer two atomic attacks than to be split into two countries.
Plus, the US was to invade the Japanese home islands, and that meant probable casualties up to 1 milllion of our soldiers. The dropping of the atomic bombs was justified.
The atomic bombs killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.
No shit, but the Japanese killed 250,000 Chinese civilians as retaliation to the Doolittle's Raid, not to mention other atrocities commited in the name of Japan.
Japan had been seeking peace as early as April, 1945. That was 4 months before we dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan.
Like I said above.
At 4/15/06 10:57 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: The first Amendment of the Constitution states clearly:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
At one time in this country, the states could establish their own church and their own religion through the Democratic process. Back in those days, the states told the federal government what they could do and not the other way around.
Like when? What examples are there?
With the 14th Amendment, Congress gave the US government the power to tell the states what they could and could not do. I'm not arguing in favor or against this decision: I'll just say it was a dramatic change in the relationship between the states and federal government.
Well, the 14th Amendment was ratified after the civil war, where the debate of state's rights versus federal control was pretty much determined.
However, according to the strict language of the Constitution, we cannot have a state religion, nor can we prohibit religious freedom. I'm going to give a few theoretical examples, you tell me how you'd rule?
Should a girl be allowed to pray on her own in school?
Yes, anyone can pray on their own, but the issue is when a school mandates prayer.
Should a teacher be allowed to talk about personal faith and spirituality in her classroom?
Yes, but if she teaches her beliefs and forces those beliefs on her students, then no.
Should an Army religious leader be allowed to pray in Jesus' name?
Yes, but only if does so with other soldiers or military personnel who want to join in. He can't make any non-Christian pray in Jesus' name.
Should tax dollars be used for the funding of certain religious symbols or schools (through vouchers)?
No. Instead, that money should go and try to improve public schools.
Should any public figures be allowed to talk about their personal spirituality?
Yes, they have that right, but again, they can't legislate their religious beliefs.
Examine the text of the section of the first Amendment before you answer these cases.
Okay.....
At 4/14/06 11:14 PM, mhb wrote: it's easy to deal with illegal immigrants. they're trespassing. therefore they must be punished as trespassers are.
Okay...
except for the fact that trespassers are fined and/or/ jailed.
Isn't that punishment?
but you could fine them. make them work to pay off the fine and then deport their ass. or the united states could institute a new law on trespassing.
Like....
trespassers will be shot on sight.
That's a primitive way to deal with immigrants seeking to better their lives and family by working.
it's already a law in new york state. as long as you feel threatened by the person on your property you have and reserve the right to shoot them with one shot from a loaded firearm.
That's law almost everywhere. But there's a difference between immigrants seeking work and gun-wielding burglars/rapists.
so i say just shoot the illegal immigrants for they are breaking the law.
Or how about just deporting them? Wouldn't that reflect better of a nation of just laws and morals?
legal immigrants can stay for they have the right.
Well, you're not completely hopeless...
the u.s. wouldn't be breaking any treaties if they decided to shoot border hoppers.
Although breaking the UN convention of Human Rights and the ideals of the American Dream.
and that whole idea of a wall all the way across the coastline. it's feasible in the easiest effort.
And who will build this? Immigrants?
think about it like this. the great wall of china would still dwarf it in size and it was built.
And as we all know, that really kept the Mongols out. Because c'mon, Kublai Khan didn't rule China! <sarcasm!/>
so therefore the government could either build a wall or they could just shoot the damn border hoppers. either way the problem won't stop but at least they'll stop comin' in so much and we'll have less illegals in the country.
What a stupid, stupid idea.
At 4/14/06 11:55 AM, Steele_Swilla wrote:At 4/14/06 11:38 AM, AnkhX100 wrote:
That's why I say we should normalize them, though. If the minutemen were regular border patrol, they would know where the sensors are.
Then, instead of forming this militia, why didn't they just join Border Patrol? Border Patrol is looking for more people to hire, haven't you seen their ads?
At 4/14/06 11:19 AM, Steele_Swilla wrote: I have a better idea....deputize the minutemen.
There the only ones who seem to care about what's going on.
Actually, they are more of an interference to Border Patrol since they trip more sensors that takes away time and energy from Border Patrol from actually patroling the Border.
At 4/11/06 05:53 AM, Redbob86 wrote: They WANT to destroy America and our way of life, those statments don't say anything about their ability to do so.
No, they want revenge for the perceived American involvement in propping up tyrannical regimes in the Middle East and the Islamic world, and the US "involvement" in aiding Israel. They also hate our way of life...if they think we are forcing it on them. They want to kill Americans, but they also primarily want us out of the Middle East and mining our own business.
It's debatable whether or not if the United States has done these things (and I'm not taking a position on those allegations), but these Islamists want to created and Islamic Caliphate throughout the Middle East, based on the Taleban model, and they are determined to fighting all those groups that interfere with them.
So yes, those statments are accurate.
How?
If the statements were "terrorists have the ability to destroy America", then no.
You're right on that, but the statement I'm talking about is mostly used by Americans at Americans.
I'm going to keep this short: Why is it I hear politicians, commentators, and average Americans saying that "Terrorists want to Destroy America" or "Terrorists want to destroy our way of life" when pratically speaking, Terrorists can't do both. Honestly, how? Even if they get a nuclear weapon, they can't destroy the entire United States. I can understand this being said about the Soviets, with all their nukes.
So, is this just instinctive talk that is a leftover from the Cold War-era, sincere belief in that terrorists can do this, or stupity?
At 4/10/06 11:46 PM, JMHX wrote:At 4/10/06 08:42 PM, AnkhX100 wrote:This is segregation...how?At 4/10/06 06:36 PM, losiglow wrote:People trying to seek the American Dream is wrong and punishable according to you. Yes, it's against the law, but at one time, a Mexican drinking from an White's only water fountain was illegal, but that doesn't make the law right.
I'm comparing laws to show both as unjust. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
But, again, on the other side of the debate, undocumented immigrants are compared to, rather unjustly, to violent criminals. So it depends, and if you don't agree with my assertion, then don't.
At 4/10/06 06:36 PM, losiglow wrote: All the individuals in the protests recently are waving Mexican flags.
I took part in the Dallas Mega March on Sunday and today on march on the Texas Capitol Building in Austin, and I say very few Mexican flags. It was mostly Old Glory being waved.
Well hot-dang, go back to mexico if you're so dang proud of it!
We're proud of our history, our heritage. The symbol of the Eagle and the Snake is a story of our people. It's no different than the St. Patrick day marches and waving of Irish and American flags. And German flags for Oktoberfest. And Italian flags for Columbus Day. I'm not saying y'all should go back to Ireland or any other country because you might be waving a flag of a foreign country. It's your heritage and you should be proud of it and of being an American.
I heard it's great this time of year! No, really though. It isn't feaseable to send them all back, and they are a major part of our economy. But at the same time, tolerating illegal behavior isn't right.
People trying to seek the American Dream is wrong and punishable according to you. Yes, it's against the law, but at one time, a Mexican drinking from an White's only water fountain was illegal, but that doesn't make the law right.
At 4/10/06 06:20 PM, chocolate_penguin wrote: Most immigrants don't want to fill out paperwork and get visas because they know it is a lot more complex and takes longer.
They want to come in legally, but if it takes years (4-10) to just get a response from the US for the visa application, and if your children are hungry, and you don't have a job because there are none, then you would cross the border, even if it means risking your life.
At 4/10/06 05:09 AM, ReiperX wrote: I don't mind immigrants, but I am very harsh on Illegal immigrants. You make it sound that no illegal ones are criminals when many are.
Most immigrants want to come to the US legally, but if it takes 4-10 years for the US to review a visa application, without knowing whether or not it is approved, and if the farm you lived in was put out of business because people buy heavily subsidized American agricultural goods, and your children are hungry and have no future in Mexico, then they will come here, regardless if they are breaking the law or not.
Is it a majority, technically no other than them simply being undocumented. But in today's world with terrorists threats and such having undocumented workers is not a good thing, these are people we cannot track easily.
Last time I checked, no Rodriguez's, Acevedo's, Villarreal's, or Chavez's flew any planes to any buildings.
Also large companies tend to take advantage of these illegal immigrants which is my biggest concern.
I'm worried about that too, and if the immigrants are legalized, then can't we agree that will give them more legal rights?
If we give these people green cards and legal status in the US with what low income that they have it'll create a huge welfare state which is not a good thing for the rest of the tax payers. That would be another 6 million on welfare <assuming approximately 5million of the estimated 11 million would be off of welfare>.
Reagan, the man noted to trying to end "Big Government", gave amnesty to 6 million illegal immigrants, including my mom, and I don't see any indication that a welfare state grew up overnight. These fears are highly exaggerated.
Now my solution, which is by no means perfect, but to me its a start. Go ahead with the bill in congress 5+ years of being here you can apply for citizenship in the US without leaving, ect.
My opinion is that give all illegal immigrants 18+ years legal status, but without the opportunity for citizenship, unless they join the armed forces or get an college education.
put prisoners on the farms working, making them help repay their debt to society and use some of the money that the farmers pay the illegal immigrants to help fund uot nation's prisons.
Look, this sounds very good and all, but remember, after Reconstruction, prisoners were "leased" to private entities, and the high demand for this free and cheap labor caused many Blacks and poor Whites to be arrested on false charges just so they can be sent off to work. I really hope we won't repeat this past mistake.
I would also love to see much harsher punishments on businesses hiring the illegal immigrants in the first place.
Why? Unless these businesses exploit them, I really see no reason to do so.
At 4/10/06 12:44 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: In no particular order:
Truth: Taxation decreases the consumption of a nation, and thereby decreases output. Taxation by itself will never, ever lead to increased prosperity.
No Liberals want taxation to the rich, not the middle and lower classes, who happen to spent a much greater percentage of their income in buying the stuff.
2) Tax cuts take away money from the poor to subsidize the rich.:
Truth: I have a hard time with this one, because it makes no sense. What money do the poor have to take away to give to the rich? A rich person makes more in an hour than a poor person does in a year.
The issue isn't that tax cuts are bad, they're only bad if the rich get over half of the tax cuts, even though they account for 1% of the popultation. Also, no President has ever given a tax cut during wartime, so that's another point. Had the tax cut been given to the middle and lower classes, who were worst affected by the recession, then not many Liberals would be complaining.
3) Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor.
Truth: Robin Hood stole from the government and gave to the poor. In the feudal system, the only people who are rich are the ones that are appointed to be, and its a closed system. Therefore Robin Hood's heroism is outdated: he would not be a hero if he stole from the rich OR the government today.
I like Robin Hood, and in Texas, where I'm from, rural Conservatives and urban Democrats tend to favor Robin Hood, although now the state government is still no where near to find another source for school funding, so at least here, it's not a partisan issue.
4) Jesus was a teacher of tolerance.
Truth: Jesus never turned any person away because of their sinfulness, but that is not the definition of tolerance. When Jesus saw sin, he did not accept it, nor did he tolerate it, he only fixed it.
Considering the alternatives of the day, it's easy to see Jesus as a tolerant person, plus, his teachings of loving thy neighbor and turning the other cheek were really unusual during the time, and it just depends how you interpret Jesus' actions.
5) FDR's New Deal fixed the Great Depression.
Truth: FDR could well have done two things that would have got us out of the Great Depression faster and he did neither. He could have done nothing and let the market self-correct by letting the supply curve move to the right. Or he could have provided all the government services he did without raising taxes, which was probably the most harmful part of his policy. The dramatic output during the second World War was what solved the Great Depression.
Yes, you are right, World War II did end the Depression, but looking at the actions of Herbert Hoover, the Depression got worse under him, and considering that the Depression was a world wide thing, we really don't see how laisse-faire tactics helped much, as is the case for Germany and Japan, where action by the governments did helped their countries grow economically, although that's the only good these governments did.
6) Without the government, there is no social safety net.
Truth: Most liberals aren't this stupid, but their rhetoric ignores the vast safety net this country already has. In the 17th Century Dutch Republic, the welfare state was completely private, church based, and much more effective. In this country, there are private soup kitchens, places for free meals, homeless shelters, etc. ... This charity is a great example of a more personal, problem solving charity that is more effective than the government.
Yes, but this private charity is not as widespread as you may think. If it is common place where you live, then lucky you, and I bet it's beneficial for your community. but there's not much in help here ( a little more in Austin than in Grand Prairie), and a lot of these places are also motivated by religious prolethysing, which is not always the most appealing option. It seems to me that the system works best with both Public and Private efforts to help the poor. since both sides do help.
7) There is a conservative bias in the news-media.
Truth: While outlets like Fox are decidedly conservative, most news-media outlets attempt to be balanced but can't hide their liberalism....While the media may no longer be completely liberal, it certainly does not have a widespread conservative bias.
I agree, but I would also like to point out the rampant sensantionalism has had a very big adverse effect on the media.
8) Wal-mart is evil.
Truth: Wal-mart has done more for the poor (and rich) in this country than the federal government has. Wal-mart has played a central role in shifting the supply curve down/to the right, resulting in a more competitive market in the US, which lowers the natural unemployment rate and increases productivity. And for every "mom and pop" business it puts out of business, it creates another business by putting their product on the store's shelves.
Look, I'll admit it, I like to shop at Wal-Mart. It's cheap to go there and is great that it's open 24/7. But Wal-Mart does has a history of doings some shady things. I advocate that Wal-Mart changes some of its methods, but I really don't want Wal-Mart to be destroyed or anything.
9) Living on a minimum wage job is impossible.
Truth: While not easy, living with a minimum wage job is possible. Living with two or three minimum wage jobs is easier.
Yes, again I agree with you, but if you're raising a family with a minimum wage income, it's hard, and it's really hard with another job and considering that the parent won't have anytime to spent with the child.
10) There is a better place to live in the world than the United States.
Truth: this is only true if you have no desire to work. Then, Europe is probably a better place to live.
Honestly, any developed nation is good to live in, but I still like the US more.
but in all, I think you should stop generalizing all Liberals and keep in mind that in any political ideology there will be differences of opinions.
At 4/5/06 02:39 PM, Deathrow_Records wrote: I was looking through the politics section and i started wondering is God real?. I am a muslim who has just started questioning my religion. I would like to hear everyones version no matter what religion you are or what you believe in
My personal opinion is no, there is no God, Goddess, Pantheon or supernatural. I believe that to assign events in the natural event to the cause or divine will of a "supreme being" is a little too easy. Will we ever know what caused the creation of the Universe? No, but I just don't think saying God did this or whatever is a sufficient enough answer.
Look, you don't need religion to live a perfectly normal, good life. You can be a fair and good individual regardless of your lack of faith, and just believe what you want to believe. No one can tell you how to practice your spirituality, and just live how you want to.
At 4/3/06 04:25 PM, -poxpower- wrote: things we could buy with the money the U.S. spent fighting in Irak
hahaha.
...454 of the Tallest Building in the United States...
meh...we really don't need such building anymore, but nice idea
...two manned missions each to the moon and Mars...
I guess we have time before we actually go to Mars
...more than 80,000 of the world's biggest truck...
Nice.
…156,250 episodes of Arrested Development...
Too bad the show is cancelled :(
...298,412,466 Sony Wega 23" LCD HDTVs... ( one tv for everyone in the U.S.)
Now I would've liked this idea
..Full ride 4-year college scholarships for 7,260,000 students...
That should've helped me, oh well...
...Give every adult man and woman in Iraq 16,000 dollars and a plane ticket to the United States..
Yeah, I really doubt that with all this anti-immigrant sentiments, this idea would've worked.
…29 Statues of Liberty that shoot laser beams out of their torch...
This idea would've been freaking awesome!
So has it been $250,000,000,000 already?
At 3/30/06 06:40 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: I would like you to highlight what this objective news we have lost is like.
Sure. Scholars (most notably Darrell M. West, author of "Rise and Fall of the Media Establishment" ) believe that from the beginning from the beginning of the Progressive era up to the aftermath of Watergate, Journalism emerged out of the "Yellow Journalism" that marked it's history up to this point, and with the opening of Journalism schools within Universities, Journalism became a profession. During this time, the Objective media became more focused with investigations and the idea of objectivity.
This isn't to say that this era wasn't without partisan news sources, take the Liberal dominance of the radio, and Conservative hold on magazines, but newspapers, the main source of news for the vast majority of Americans, were for the most part, objective, and stories were uniform throughout newspapers, even if newspaper were not all members of the same wire services.
With television, theses practices were maintained, for the most part, and the media continued with it's practices and standard. Also, news programs were not polled for ratings, since it was believed that this would take away from the news. But with Vietnam, backlashes from people who disagreed with the media's protrayal of the war and the civil rights movement, the smugness of the media over Watergate, and finally corporate influences spelled an end to this stage of journalism in American history, and began the Interpretive and Modern stage of the media we all loath and dislike.
You seem to have nostalgia for something that never existed or still exists. Cause I am pretty damn sure the way news is done today is the same as it was done 100 years ago.
You are absolutely right, the media a century ago was very similar to ours today, but then again, I'm referring to the periond from 1910 to the 1970's, so I'm right too. We both win : p
By the way, you should read the "Rise and Fall of the Media Establishment", which is one of the few non-partisan historical account of the American Journalism from indepedence to the modern day. But my belief of "balance" hurting Journalism is not related to the book
First off, let me say that this topic is not about any pariticular news media outlet and any bias that news media may have, but rather, this topic is about the concept of balance in the news.
Let me start by asking what is the purpose of the Press? What is their responsibility to the public? Is it to be as objective and factual as possible? Is it to expose the truth at any cost? Or is it to present the news, and then show all sides of the issue. The last hypothetical answer seems to dominate the news media, regardless of what network or outlet may be, be it CNN, FOX, MSNBC, The New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal. Pundits dominate the airwaves, and now the media is more about expressing opinion than any actual news.
I personally believe that the need for balance is harming the news media, and let me explain. Like I said before, Balance is the dominant approach to how the media operates. If there's an issue, let's say Tax Cuts, you'll see a representative of the "Liberal" point of view (probably a Professor or Doctor) arguing against a person representing the "Conservative" point of view (from one of the highly influential think-tanks like Cato, Heritage, or American Enterprise).
Anyways, this act of balance seems, on the surface to show all point of views, and there is no problem. Right? Wrong.
My own interpretation of the media's role is that it has to be as Objective and Accurate as possible. This may seem to fit well with the mantra of Balance, but Balance is about giving people the chance to air out their opinions, and opinions have no place in reporting the news. That's why newspapers had Editorials and Opinion pages, to seperate the reporting from the opinions. Now I'm not saying that opinions haven't influenced reporting in the past, it's naive to believe so, but we have gone from an era where getting news from either ABC, NBC, and CBS didn't matter, since it was all pretty much the same news report, to an era where we may align ourselves with any outlet for partisan and ideological reasons.
It seems to reach absurd proportions. The media is protraying issues that have widespread consensus, like Global Warming, and making it like that the scientific community is actually split on the issue (which it isn't). This call for balance is absurd. Just because a Holocaust denier expouses is fucked up "history" doesn't mean we have to give them equal time to an expert on the Holocaust, or Tobacco lobbyists equal time to a Scientist, so why the hell to we need to find the need to air out opinions on the air? If people got their news as facts, then any well informed person would obviously know that the Holocaust happened, or that smoking may lead to lung cancer. There's no problem there.
But, alas, due to the need for revenue and ratings, the various news outlets are not going to go back to the old objective doctrine, and as long as a corporation disapproves of an expose` on environment pollution by a network, or if the government may not look to kindly to an investigation by a newspaper, and forces change, we are never going to get out of this idea of "Balance".
So what do y'all think about this?
At 3/28/06 09:53 PM, furball1 wrote: This is about how Democrats, especially Jimmy Carter and Clinton allowed terrorism to become what it is now today.
Jimmy Carter told the leader of Iran, an elected leader of a great democratic nation like Israel, to step down from his seat of power or be forcibly removed. Jimmy Carter put a clone of himself in the Shah of Iran's throne, he was a communist, socialist, welfare loving dictator. A coup immediately formed to kill anyone who supprted the old government. Riots raged and the whole country was a mess. In the following years poverty and civil war wrecked the country. Terrorist groups rose out of this wrecked nation and killed Americans blaming them for the chaos that caused their lives to be ruined.
Where the hell did you get this info? Did you just make it up.
First of all, the democratically elected leader of Iran, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh was ousted by a CIA backed coup in 1953 and replaced by the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Now why did the coup occur? Because this was the time of the Cold War, and since Mossadegh (or rather his supporters in the Iranian Parliament) nationalized the previously British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which of course led to a British blockade of the Persian Gulf to prevent Iran from shipping out the oil.
The coming economic problems hurt Iran, but not Mossadegh's popularity, and he asked the Shah for emergency powers, which he refused. After the problems spiraled out of control, Mossadegh, allied with both the Islamist and Social parties, ended the old feudal system of Iran. The British, lacking the resources, falsely told the US that Mossadegh was allied with the Soviets, and so the CIA backed a coup, which gave the Shah enormous powers to rule over the Iranians. And of course, with Ayatollah Khomeni opposition to the Shah and Iraninan resentment towards the Shah, well, there came the Iranian revolution.
So, you're wrong.
Terror attacks continued on US soil, ignored by most presidents in fear of humilitation or a drop in support.. Reagan was the first president to stand up to radical groups and actually detain terrorists.
Wait a minute, could you enlighten me with these attacks on American soil?
To give an example of why terrorists and extremist Muslims want a democratic leader in power is because they know Democrats are wimps.
And you base this on what? Your own opinions?
They won't do anything in retaliation. Doesn't it strike anyone a bit curious that after one of the biggest hostage takings directed at Americans was conducted when Jimmy Carter was in office, but then they were set free minutes after Reagan's inauguration?
Because the Algiers Accords was signed between the US and Iran to free the hostages, and the Iranians wanted to humiliate Carter. Reagan had nothing to do with freeing the hostages, but he got the credit anyways.
When Bush senior came to office he said he would do what Reagan did, but didn't do much. He did what Clinton did in later years; launch occasional cruise missile strikes into the desert and claiming it had done major damage. Bush senior pretty much just cared about his poll numbers like Clinton later did.
Do what? Armed the Afghani Mujanideen with rocket-launced grenades, funding bin Laden, and training them in insurgent tactics, then no, Bush Sr. and Clinton did not do that.
When Clinton was elected the military budget just died. it flattened. It was bare bones. Clinton didn't think we needed a military because, like Carter, wasn't a bad man but thought the world was such a good place that there wouldn't ever be a need for a military.
Well, considering that the Soviet Union had fallen, and we had no major military threats, it made sense to stop pissing money to the military when these funds were no longer needed to support nuclear-armed bombers, tank divisions in Europe, and other projects ment to fight the Soviet warmachine, not a bunch of guerilla fighters.
The most terrorist attacks were staged in Clinton's presidency and the damage he did to the United states is almost permanent.
But these attacks were planned outside of the United States, and indications are that both the Clinton and Bush administration had warnings of the attack, so if you blame Clinton, then you have to blame Bush as well. Not that I do.
At 3/29/06 06:33 PM, furball1 wrote: This is my point, why do Democrats sympathize with terrorists? Terrorists want Democrats to come to power because they know it will be easier for them to stage attacks on US soil.
And how can you justify your statement? Considering that there are still major lapses in our national security system (weak borders, inefficient airport screenings, underguarded ports) can make it easy for terrorists to strike again, despite Republican control in Congress and the White House. Is this to say that Republicans are to blame? Not at all, but if pretty short-sighted to make accusations based an oversimplified generalizations.
Democrat and Islamic Fanatics have almost nothing in common in their ideology, and considering that these fanatics detest Democracy (which both Democrats and Republicans hold dear), then the issue of whether a the scenario of whether these Wahabist would and for whom to vote for is simply a moot issue.
Who says Hitler would vote Republican? He wouldn't. Republicans have almost nothing in relation with the Nazi or fascist party.
Well the question was asked to show the ridiculous nature of your own question, so at least you know how the other side may feel.
No, it is because Democrats never retaliate against terror attacks, they do little or nothing to fight back.
Again, what are you basing this on? Only your opinion and speculation, so what?
At 2/22/06 01:24 PM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: Aww your life must be so hard ):
Having access to good education must suck ):
He won't if this bill passes the House of Representatives passes the cuts.
Stop bitching asshole, And just fucking work. You have the OPPORTUNITY AND PRIVELEGE of going to a safe well established educational institute to further increase your chances of success in your worthless life. Don't bitch about it.
How can he have those advantages without Financial Aid? Really, you seem to not get the entire point of this issue.
It's not as bad as you try to make it out to be.
For one, the percentage of immingrants to this country is less than it was in the early 20th century, and considering the US population is about to hit 300,000,000 this year, I can't see how immigrants from Latin America will change the entire language of the United States.
Besides, second generation Hispanics (those born in the US from immigrants), like myself, lose much of our Spanish, and are English speakers. So don't worry about it.
